New location security strings and animation.

chrome/browser/ui/views/location_bar/icon_label_bubble_view.cc

Index: chrome/browser/ui/views/location_bar/icon_label_bubble_view.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/ui/views/location_bar/icon_label_bubble_view.cc b/chrome/browser/ui/views/location_bar/icon_label_bubble_view.cc
index 4abe60c7c68684c4ea339439a1923b18e5df36a6..cdbd9431887519ea93c6504bb51cc8d4cc7f43ae 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/ui/views/location_bar/icon_label_bubble_view.cc
+++ b/chrome/browser/ui/views/location_bar/icon_label_bubble_view.cc
@@ -249,12 +249,19 @@ gfx::Size IconLabelBubbleView::GetSizeForLabelWidth(int label_width) const {
     // fully showing both label and icon, stay there, then shrink to just large
     // enough to show the icon. We don't want to shrink all the way back to
     // zero, since this would mean the view would completely disappear and then
-    // pop back to an icon after the animation finishes.
-    const int max_width = GetImageTrailingEdge() + GetInternalSpacing() +
-                          label_width + post_label_width;
-    const int current_width = WidthMultiplier() * max_width;
-    size.set_width(shrinking ? std::max(current_width, size.width())
-                             : current_width);
+    // pop back to an icon after the animation finishes. Thus, while shrinking,
+    // |multiplier| only refers to the label, separator and padding - the only
+    // parts which, in fact, shrink.
+    int current_width;
+    if (shrinking) {
+      current_width = GetImageTrailingEdge() + GetInternalSpacing() +
+                      (label_width + post_label_width) * WidthMultiplier();
+    } else {
+      const int max_width = GetImageTrailingEdge() + GetInternalSpacing() +
+                            label_width + post_label_width;
+      current_width = WidthMultiplier() * max_width;
+    }
+    size.set_width(current_width);

[Peter Kasting, 2016/08/15 23:29:49]

It seems like there are two effects this change has:

(1) The code is longer and more complicated.
(2) We will shrink from (max) to (image width) in the same time we grew from (0)
to (max), instead of shrinking at the same pixel rate (and thus taking a shorter
time to shrink than grow).

Change (2) doesn't seem desirable.  It seems like shrinking at a constant
physical speed instead of over an equal time period is better.

[Kevin Bailey, 2016/08/16 16:39:36]

Done, but see comment in location_icon_view.cc.

   }
   return size;
 }