Replace deprecated iron-flex-layout/classes with iron-flex-layout-class in MD Settings

Replace deprecated iron-flex-layout/classes with iron-flex-layout-class in MD Settings

This means adding <style include="iron-flex-layout"> for all elements that use
iron-flex-layout classes, even if they didn't import iron-flex-layout/classes/*
before (because they were benefitting from the global effects of that import).

It may be worth a follow-up to consider reducing the impact of iron-flex, but
for now I want to make clear what's using it.

This will not fix crbug.com/635633 until the same is done for cr_elements and
quick_unlock.

BUG=635633
R=dschuyler@chromium.org
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation

[michaelpg, 2016-08-09 00:21:27]

Description was changed from

==========
Replace deprecated iron-flex-layout/classes with iron-flex-layout-class in MD
Settings

This means adding <style include="iron-flex-layout"> for all elements that use
iron-flex-layout classes, even if they didn't import iron-flex-layout/classes/*
before (because they were benefitting from the global effects of that import).

It may be worth a follow-up to consider reducing the impact of iron-flex, but
for now I want to make clear what's using it.

This will not fix crbug.com/635633 until the same is done for cr_elements and
quick_unlock.

BUG=635633
R=dschuyler@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Replace deprecated iron-flex-layout/classes with iron-flex-layout-class in MD
Settings

This means adding <style include="iron-flex-layout"> for all elements that use
iron-flex-layout classes, even if they didn't import iron-flex-layout/classes/*
before (because they were benefitting from the global effects of that import).

It may be worth a follow-up to consider reducing the impact of iron-flex, but
for now I want to make clear what's using it.

This will not fix crbug.com/635633 until the same is done for cr_elements and
quick_unlock.

BUG=635633
R=dschuyler@chromium.org
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation
==========

[dschuyler, 2016-08-09 02:24:11]

What would be good or bad about including iron-flex within 
settings-shared rather than repeating it in so many places?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/downloads_page/downloads_page.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/downloads_page/downloads_page.html:46: </div>
should this close div be moved up two lines? (inside the if).

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/internet_page/internet_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/internet_page/internet_page.html:7: <link
rel="import" href="/route.html">
Is this an intentional addition?
It's fine if so.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
File ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html:21: }
Could this be a separate CL?

[michaelpg, 2016-08-09 02:43:35]

undid a couple unnecessary changes

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/downloads_page/downloads_page.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/downloads_page/downloads_page.html:46: </div>
On 2016/08/09 02:24:11, dschuyler wrote:
> should this close div be moved up two lines? (inside the if).

yep, great catch!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/internet_page/internet_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/internet_page/internet_page.html:7: <link
rel="import" href="/route.html">
On 2016/08/09 02:24:11, dschuyler wrote:
> Is this an intentional addition?
> It's fine if so.

It's an intentional re-sorting of the original because /route.html was out of
place and I had to decide where to insert the iron-flex-layout import.

[michaelpg, 2016-08-09 02:49:00]

On 2016/08/09 02:24:11, dschuyler wrote:
> What would be good or bad about including iron-flex within 
> settings-shared rather than repeating it in so many places?

Bad: everything that includes settings-shared but *not* iron-flex suddenly has
those extra styles in its shadow DOM, bloating the page.

Bad: ignoring include-what-you-use leads to issues (see: all the files in this
CL that didn't have any iron-flex references but still expected those classes to
exist)

Bad: we'd still have to explicitly include iron-flex when we *don't* include
settings-shared, so that could be confusing.

Good: less boilerplate.

IMO if we only need two or three classes the majority of the time, we should put
those in settings-shared, OR define a couple mixins on :root that any element
could @apply to get "layout vertical" or whatever.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
File ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html:21: }
On 2016/08/09 02:24:11, dschuyler wrote:
> Could this be a separate CL?

It would have to be a precursor CL, as this rule is necessary for hidden to work
as we expect. SGTY?

[dschuyler, 2016-08-09 17:19:13]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
File ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html:21: }
On 2016/08/09 02:49:00, michaelpg wrote:
> On 2016/08/09 02:24:11, dschuyler wrote:
> > Could this be a separate CL?
> 
> It would have to be a precursor CL, as this rule is necessary for hidden to
work
> as we expect. SGTY?

Yeah. I'd like git bisect to be able to help test these
changes separately (if that comes up in the future).

[michaelpg, 2016-08-10 16:11:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
File ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2221073004/diff/1/ui/webui/resources/cr_eleme...
ui/webui/resources/cr_elements/shared_vars_css.html:21: }
On 2016/08/09 17:19:13, dschuyler wrote:
> On 2016/08/09 02:49:00, michaelpg wrote:
> > On 2016/08/09 02:24:11, dschuyler wrote:
> > > Could this be a separate CL?
> > 
> > It would have to be a precursor CL, as this rule is necessary for hidden to
> work
> > as we expect. SGTY?
> 
> Yeah. I'd like git bisect to be able to help test these
> changes separately (if that comes up in the future).

Done.

[dschuyler, 2016-08-10 19:12:18]

lgtm