Switch to use SharedBitmapManager all the time in cc_unittests

Switch to use SharedBitmapManager all the time in cc_unittests

This matches the behavior of the browser and renderer better, and lets us use SharedBitmaps in more tests.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=258318

[jbauman, 2014-03-18 22:38:40]

This is mostly a bunch of mechanical changes to allocate a
TestSharedBitmapManager everywhere.

[danakj, 2014-03-18 23:42:44]

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc
File cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/layers/layer_unittest...
cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc:808: shared_bitmap_manager_.reset(new
TestSharedBitmapManager());
do this as constructor initialization like client_ is?

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/fake_layer_tree_...
File cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/fake_layer_tree_...
cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host_impl.cc:21: bitmap_manager_.reset(new
TestSharedBitmapManager);
This is kinda unfortunate. Can we own it outside this class and pass it to the
constructor? This might look a lot like the LayerTreeHostFactory in
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/layer_tree_test.cc
File cc/test/layer_tree_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/layer_tree_test....
cc/test/layer_tree_test.cc:330: test_hooks_(test_hooks),
set the shared_bitmap_manager_ here instead? then CreateLayerTreeHostImpl()
doesn't have side effects.

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/trees/layer_tree_host...
File cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/trees/layer_tree_host...
cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl_unittest.cc:5547: scoped_ptr<SharedBitmapManager>
shared_bitmap_manager(
can use shared_bitmap_manager_ here since we're setting host_impl_?

[jbauman, 2014-03-19 22:50:45]

PTAL.

On 2014/03/18 23:42:44, danakj wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc
> File cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/layers/layer_unittest...
> cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc:808: shared_bitmap_manager_.reset(new
> TestSharedBitmapManager());
> do this as constructor initialization like client_ is?
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/fake_layer_tree_...
> File cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host_impl.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/fake_layer_tree_...
> cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host_impl.cc:21: bitmap_manager_.reset(new
> TestSharedBitmapManager);
> This is kinda unfortunate. Can we own it outside this class and pass it to the
> constructor? This might look a lot like the LayerTreeHostFactory in
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/layers/layer_unittest.cc

Unfortunately it didn't make sense to make something like LayerTreeHostFactory,
because a bunch of FakeLayerTreeHostImpls are allocated on the stack or as
member variables, but I was able to move the TestSharedBitmapManager allocations
to where the FakeLayerTreeHostImpl is allocated.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/layer_tree_test.cc
> File cc/test/layer_tree_test.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/test/layer_tree_test....
> cc/test/layer_tree_test.cc:330: test_hooks_(test_hooks),
> set the shared_bitmap_manager_ here instead? then CreateLayerTreeHostImpl()
> doesn't have side effects.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/trees/layer_tree_host...
> File cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl_unittest.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/30001/cc/trees/layer_tree_host...
> cc/trees/layer_tree_host_impl_unittest.cc:5547:
scoped_ptr<SharedBitmapManager>
> shared_bitmap_manager(
> can use shared_bitmap_manager_ here since we're setting host_impl_?

[danakj, 2014-03-19 23:23:20]

In file included from ../../cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host.cc:5:
../../cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host.h:54:3:error: [chromium-style] Complex
constructor has an inlined body.
  FakeLayerTreeHost(LayerTreeHostClient* client,
  ^
1 error generated.

[danakj, 2014-03-19 23:27:18]

LGTM 1 more thing

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/50001/cc/test/fake_layer_tree_...
File cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host_impl.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/202763002/diff/50001/cc/test/fake_layer_tree_...
cc/test/fake_layer_tree_host_impl.h:17: explicit FakeLayerTreeHostImpl(Proxy*
proxy, SharedBitmapManager* manager);
remove explicit

[jbauman, 2014-03-19 23:41:16]

The CQ bit was checked by jbauman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-19 23:44:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jbauman@chromium.org/202763002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-20 00:11:34]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-20 00:11:35]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  tryserver.chromium on linux_chromium_chromeos_rel
  tryserver.chromium on mac_chromium_rel

[jbauman, 2014-03-20 00:25:17]

The CQ bit was checked by jbauman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-20 00:25:21]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jbauman@chromium.org/202763002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-20 01:09:40]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-20 01:09:40]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  tryserver.chromium on linux_chromium_chromeos_rel

[danakj, 2014-03-20 15:35:20]

The CQ bit was checked by danakj@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-20 15:35:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jbauman@chromium.org/202763002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-20 17:25:49]

Change committed as 258318