Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation

Committed: https://crrev.com/d93138eb45d464a042ff85086cb19e5d74d6af1f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#405163}

[alexmos, 2016-07-06 21:53:47]

Description was changed from

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows up
with a test.

BUG=593522
==========

to

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows up
with a test.

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

[alexmos, 2016-07-07 16:32:24]

Description was changed from

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows up
with a test.

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

to

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

[alexmos, 2016-07-07 16:47:36]

Description was changed from

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

to

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

[alexmos, 2016-07-07 21:17:19]

alexmos@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ miu@chromium.org

[alexmos, 2016-07-07 21:17:20]

Yuri, can you please review this test?  I promised to follow up with it after
landing Flash fullscreen fixes for OOPIFs in
https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002.  The issues that were blocking the
test are now resolved, apart from one last issue with
PepperPluginInstanceImpl::SimulateInputEvent, which I'm also fixing here.  I'm
deliberately not passing in --site-per-process inside the test, so that we get
coverage both with and without the flag.  The linux_site_isolation bot tests it
with the flag, and site isolation FYI bots will provide ongoing
--site-per-process coverage.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2123093005/diff/80001/chrome/interactive_ui_t...
File chrome/interactive_ui_tests.isolate (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2123093005/diff/80001/chrome/interactive_ui_t...
chrome/interactive_ui_tests.isolate:58: '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/test_case.html',
These changes, along with the ones in BUILD.gn, were necessary for the test to
work on swarming bots.  This just mimics what is done by browser_tests.  I'm
guessing it was a bug that this wasn't done previously, but we got away with
that because none of the other interactive_ui_tests ran ppapi tests via http
(but rather through file: urls) - for http, these files are copied and served
out of this directory.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2123093005/diff/80001/content/renderer/pepper...
File content/renderer/pepper/pepper_plugin_instance_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2123093005/diff/80001/content/renderer/pepper...
content/renderer/pepper/pepper_plugin_instance_impl.cc:2195:
container()->document().frame()->localRoot()->frameWidget();
This function didn't work in OOPIF processes, since the WebView corresponds to a
remote main frame, and it can't be used for processing input events.  I think
the correct thing to use here is the frame's actual widget, which lives in the
local root.

[miu, 2016-07-08 01:38:26]

lgtm. Thanks for following up with a solid test case! :)

[alexmos, 2016-07-08 05:01:04]

alexmos@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ nick@chromium.org, raymes@chromium.org, thestig@chromium.org

[alexmos, 2016-07-08 05:01:04]

Thanks!  Adding owners:
raymes: please review ppapi/
nick: please review content/
thestig: please review chrome/interactive_ui_tests.isolate

[Lei Zhang, 2016-07-08 05:04:24]

lgtm

[ncarter (slow), 2016-07-08 22:36:17]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/2123093005/diff/80001/chrome/interactive_ui_t...
File chrome/interactive_ui_tests.isolate (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2123093005/diff/80001/chrome/interactive_ui_t...
chrome/interactive_ui_tests.isolate:58: '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/test_case.html',
On 2016/07/07 21:17:19, alexmos wrote:
> These changes, along with the ones in BUILD.gn, were necessary for the test to
> work on swarming bots.  This just mimics what is done by browser_tests.  I'm
> guessing it was a bug that this wasn't done previously, but we got away with
> that because none of the other interactive_ui_tests ran ppapi tests via http
> (but rather through file: urls) - for http, these files are copied and served
> out of this directory.

Makes sense to me.

[alexmos, 2016-07-11 18:15:17]

raymes: ping for looking at the small change to ppapi/tests/test_case.html?

(The test actually passes without this change, as this gets called on shutdown
and the only side effect is a javascript error message, but guarding against
this is probably a good idea in case the test is expanded later. 
window.frameElement can only be accessed by same-origin iframes.)

[alexmos, 2016-07-11 19:44:48]

alexmos@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bbudge@chromium.org

[alexmos, 2016-07-11 19:44:48]

+bbudge for reviewing ppapi/tests/test_case.html, in case you can get to it
faster than raymes:

On 2016/07/11 18:15:17, alexmos wrote:
> raymes: ping for looking at the small change to ppapi/tests/test_case.html?
> 
> (The test actually passes without this change, as this gets called on shutdown
> and the only side effect is a javascript error message, but guarding against
> this is probably a good idea in case the test is expanded later. 
> window.frameElement can only be accessed by same-origin iframes.)

[raymes, 2016-07-12 00:05:07]

lgtm, sorry for the delay

[alexmos, 2016-07-12 00:21:10]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 00:22:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 01:54:01]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 01:54:01]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[alexmos, 2016-07-12 01:55:10]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 01:56:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 03:13:54]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 03:13:56]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[Lei Zhang, 2016-07-12 04:28:46]

The CQ bit was checked by thestig@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 04:29:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 06:33:14]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 06:33:15]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_asan_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[alexmos, 2016-07-12 15:14:47]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 15:15:20]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 18:19:13]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 18:19:14]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[alexmos, 2016-07-12 19:22:30]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-12 19:24:25]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 00:47:45]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 00:47:46]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[alexmos, 2016-07-13 04:28:40]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 04:29:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 06:30:20]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 06:30:21]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[alexmos, 2016-07-13 15:02:30]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 15:03:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 15:39:04]

Description was changed from

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

to

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 15:39:05]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 15:39:27]

CQ bit was unchecked.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 15:40:25]

Description was changed from

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

to

==========
Add a test for Flash Fullscreen from a cross-site subframe.

The underlying issues with Flash fullscreen and OOPIFs were already
fixed by https://codereview.chromium.org/1973813002, and this follows
up with a test.  Note that the test doesn't actually turn on
--site-per-process so that we get coverage both with OOPIFs (on Site
Isolation FYI bots) and without (on regular bots).

BUG=593522
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation

Committed: https://crrev.com/d93138eb45d464a042ff85086cb19e5d74d6af1f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#405163}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-13 15:40:26]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/d93138eb45d464a042ff85086cb19e5d74d6af1f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#405163}