Use content::FrameOwnerProperties instead of blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties in content/

Use content::FrameOwnerProperties instead of blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties in content/

In https://codereview.chromium.org/2146803004 we introduced
content::FrameOwnerProperties which was used to transport
blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties over IPC. This CL changes content/ to use this
new struct wherever possible to avoid converting back and forth between the
two structs as much.

BUG=614608
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation

Committed: https://crrev.com/3145780a24db76c6fc4131cfdaea6dcd21131c22
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#406504}

[raymes, 2016-07-18 04:54:07]

Description was changed from

==========
Use content::FrameOwnerProperties instead of blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties in
content/

In https://codereview.chromium.org/2146803004 we introduced
content::FrameOwnerProperties which was used to transport
blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties over IPC. This CL changes content/ to use this
new struct wherever possible to avoid converting back and forth between the
two structs as much.

BUG=614608
==========

to

==========
Use content::FrameOwnerProperties instead of blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties in
content/

In https://codereview.chromium.org/2146803004 we introduced
content::FrameOwnerProperties which was used to transport
blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties over IPC. This CL changes content/ to use this
new struct wherever possible to avoid converting back and forth between the
two structs as much.

BUG=614608
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

[raymes, 2016-07-18 05:00:18]

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

[alexmos, 2016-07-19 00:15:56]

Looks good - just a couple of comments.  Also, does this now allow us to remove
WebFrameOwnerProperties from content/browser/DEPS?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
File content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h:97: struct
FileChooserParams;
Why are there two of these?  Did you mean FrameOwnerProperties?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
File content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_proxy_host.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_proxy_host.cc:198: // For subframes,
initialize the proxy's WebFrameOwnerProperties only if they
s/WebFrameOwnerProperties/FrameOwnerProperties/

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
File content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:7396: root,
"document.getElementById('child-0').allow_fullscreen='true'"));
I don't think you want to change this.  This is the iframe element's 
"allowfullscreen" attribute in JS, not FrameOwnerProperties.  (I'd expect
tryjobs to fail on this once you run them.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:7417:
"document.getElementById('child-0').allow_fullscreen='true'"));
Ditto.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:7427: root,
"document.getElementById('child-0').allow_fullscreen='true'"));
Ditto.

[raymes, 2016-07-19 05:53:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
File content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h:97: struct
FileChooserParams;
There were already 2 in the list and when I sorted the list they got moved
together :P I removed the duplicate :)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
File content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_proxy_host.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/frame_h...
content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_proxy_host.cc:198: // For subframes,
initialize the proxy's WebFrameOwnerProperties only if they
On 2016/07/19 00:15:56, alexmos wrote:
> s/WebFrameOwnerProperties/FrameOwnerProperties/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
File content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:7396: root,
"document.getElementById('child-0').allow_fullscreen='true'"));
On 2016/07/19 00:15:56, alexmos wrote:
> I don't think you want to change this.  This is the iframe element's 
> "allowfullscreen" attribute in JS, not FrameOwnerProperties.  (I'd expect
> tryjobs to fail on this once you run them.)

Oops - find/replace failed me :(

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:7417:
"document.getElementById('child-0').allow_fullscreen='true'"));
On 2016/07/19 00:15:56, alexmos wrote:
> Ditto.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/20001/content/browser/site_pe...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:7427: root,
"document.getElementById('child-0').allow_fullscreen='true'"));
On 2016/07/19 00:15:56, alexmos wrote:
> Ditto.

Done.

[raymes, 2016-07-19 05:53:14]

The CQ bit was checked by raymes@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-19 05:53:28]

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

[alexmos, 2016-07-19 06:38:42]

Thanks, LGTM.

[raymes, 2016-07-19 06:40:41]

raymes@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ esprehn@chromium.org, nasko@chromium.org

[raymes, 2016-07-19 06:40:42]

+nasko for content/
+esprehn for third_party/WebKit/public/web/WebFrameOwnerProperties.h

[esprehn, 2016-07-19 07:06:40]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-19 07:11:42]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-19 07:11:43]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[nasko, 2016-07-19 21:32:43]

LGTM with a nit.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/40001/content/browser/frame_h...
File content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/40001/content/browser/frame_h...
content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h:103: struct
FileChooserParams;
Why is this one touched? It seems unrelated to this CL.

[raymes, 2016-07-20 03:22:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/40001/content/browser/frame_h...
File content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/diff/40001/content/browser/frame_h...
content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.h:103: struct
FileChooserParams;
On 2016/07/19 21:32:43, nasko wrote:
> Why is this one touched? It seems unrelated to this CL.

It's just a duplicated forward declare that I noticed while changing this file.
I've removed it from this CL.

[raymes, 2016-07-20 03:22:30]

The CQ bit was checked by raymes@chromium.org

[raymes, 2016-07-20 03:22:31]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
esprehn@chromium.org, alexmos@chromium.org, nasko@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2156883002/#ps60001
(title: "Use this everywhere")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-20 03:23:10]

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, 2016-07-20 06:08:30]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-20 06:10:30]

Description was changed from

==========
Use content::FrameOwnerProperties instead of blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties in
content/

In https://codereview.chromium.org/2146803004 we introduced
content::FrameOwnerProperties which was used to transport
blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties over IPC. This CL changes content/ to use this
new struct wherever possible to avoid converting back and forth between the
two structs as much.

BUG=614608
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

to

==========
Use content::FrameOwnerProperties instead of blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties in
content/

In https://codereview.chromium.org/2146803004 we introduced
content::FrameOwnerProperties which was used to transport
blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties over IPC. This CL changes content/ to use this
new struct wherever possible to avoid converting back and forth between the
two structs as much.

BUG=614608
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation

Committed: https://crrev.com/3145780a24db76c6fc4131cfdaea6dcd21131c22
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#406504}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-20 06:10:31]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/3145780a24db76c6fc4131cfdaea6dcd21131c22
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#406504}