Factor out a perf test result printer method.

Factor out a perf test result printer method.

This is to allow cc_perftests to share this code without depending on chrome/.

BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=220803

[tonyg, 2013-08-27 00:50:42]

Hi thakis,

jochen is OOO, would you mind taking a look at this? It is a simple move
operation.

Thanks,
Tony

[Nico, 2013-08-27 03:49:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:2494: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
This is a bit unfortunate. I don't think we want to have 'browser' depend on a
target in the testing/ folder. testing/ looks too much like test-only code, so
people will add stuff to this target, and then it ends up being compiled into
your shipping binary.

Is this dependency needed? What for?

[tonyg, 2013-08-27 04:08:31]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:2494: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
On 2013/08/27 03:49:03, Nico wrote:
> This is a bit unfortunate. I don't think we want to have 'browser' depend on a
> target in the testing/ folder. testing/ looks too much like test-only code, so
> people will add stuff to this target, and then it ends up being compiled into
> your shipping binary.
> 
> Is this dependency needed? What for?

Oh jeez, this is ridiculous. I've just learned that apparently we link the page
cyclers into the chrome binary to support a --visit-urls chrome flag which runs
the page cyclers.

This never should have landed and I'd like to rip it out:
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10386134

For the purposes of this patch, I'm not making the dependency any worse. Would
you be okay if I landed this patch as-is then put together a subsequent patch to
rip the page cyclers out of the chrome binary.

[tonyg, 2013-08-27 04:10:26]

On 2013/08/27 04:08:31, tonyg wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
> File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi#ne...
> chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:2494: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
> On 2013/08/27 03:49:03, Nico wrote:
> > This is a bit unfortunate. I don't think we want to have 'browser' depend on
a
> > target in the testing/ folder. testing/ looks too much like test-only code,
so
> > people will add stuff to this target, and then it ends up being compiled
into
> > your shipping binary.
> > 
> > Is this dependency needed? What for?
> 
> Oh jeez, this is ridiculous. I've just learned that apparently we link the
page
> cyclers into the chrome binary to support a --visit-urls chrome flag which
runs
> the page cyclers.
> 
> This never should have landed and I'd like to rip it out:
> https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10386134

And https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10491010

> 
> For the purposes of this patch, I'm not making the dependency any worse. Would
> you be okay if I landed this patch as-is then put together a subsequent patch
to
> rip the page cyclers out of the chrome binary.

[tonyg, 2013-08-27 05:05:56]

On 2013/08/27 04:10:26, tonyg wrote:
> On 2013/08/27 04:08:31, tonyg wrote:
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
> > File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi#ne...
> > chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:2494: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
> > On 2013/08/27 03:49:03, Nico wrote:
> > > This is a bit unfortunate. I don't think we want to have 'browser' depend
on
> a
> > > target in the testing/ folder. testing/ looks too much like test-only
code,
> so
> > > people will add stuff to this target, and then it ends up being compiled
> into
> > > your shipping binary.
> > > 
> > > Is this dependency needed? What for?
> > 
> > Oh jeez, this is ridiculous. I've just learned that apparently we link the
> page
> > cyclers into the chrome binary to support a --visit-urls chrome flag which
> runs
> > the page cyclers.
> > 
> > This never should have landed and I'd like to rip it out:
> > https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10386134
> 
> And https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10491010
> 
> > 
> > For the purposes of this patch, I'm not making the dependency any worse.
Would
> > you be okay if I landed this patch as-is then put together a subsequent
patch
> to
> > rip the page cyclers out of the chrome binary.

CL to solve this bad dependency is here:
https://codereview.chromium.org/23498004/

[Nico, 2013-08-27 15:09:21]

lgtm, thanks for looking into this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:2494: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
On 2013/08/27 04:08:31, tonyg wrote:
> On 2013/08/27 03:49:03, Nico wrote:
> > This is a bit unfortunate. I don't think we want to have 'browser' depend on
a
> > target in the testing/ folder. testing/ looks too much like test-only code,
so
> > people will add stuff to this target, and then it ends up being compiled
into
> > your shipping binary.
> > 
> > Is this dependency needed? What for?
> 
> Oh jeez, this is ridiculous. I've just learned that apparently we link the
page
> cyclers into the chrome binary to support a --visit-urls chrome flag which
runs
> the page cyclers.
> 
> This never should have landed and I'd like to rip it out:
> https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10386134
> 
> For the purposes of this patch, I'm not making the dependency any worse. Would
> you be okay if I landed this patch as-is then put together a subsequent patch
to
> rip the page cyclers out of the chrome binary.

Sounds good, please add a comment with a link to the bug you filed to this line
too (if it's still needed after your other CL).

[tonyg, 2013-08-27 15:23:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:2494: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
On 2013/08/27 15:09:21, Nico wrote:
> On 2013/08/27 04:08:31, tonyg wrote:
> > On 2013/08/27 03:49:03, Nico wrote:
> > > This is a bit unfortunate. I don't think we want to have 'browser' depend
on
> a
> > > target in the testing/ folder. testing/ looks too much like test-only
code,
> so
> > > people will add stuff to this target, and then it ends up being compiled
> into
> > > your shipping binary.
> > > 
> > > Is this dependency needed? What for?
> > 
> > Oh jeez, this is ridiculous. I've just learned that apparently we link the
> page
> > cyclers into the chrome binary to support a --visit-urls chrome flag which
> runs
> > the page cyclers.
> > 
> > This never should have landed and I'd like to rip it out:
> > https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10386134
> > 
> > For the purposes of this patch, I'm not making the dependency any worse.
Would
> > you be okay if I landed this patch as-is then put together a subsequent
patch
> to
> > rip the page cyclers out of the chrome binary.
> 
> Sounds good, please add a comment with a link to the bug you filed to this
line
> too (if it's still needed after your other CL).

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-08-27 15:40:20]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tonyg@chromium.org/23509002/14001

[tonyg, 2013-08-27 20:50:24]

Hey erikwright, grt, I'm fishing for a chrome_frame/ owner for this patch. Would
either of you mind taking a look?

Thanks,
Tony

[grt (UTC plus 2), 2013-08-28 15:04:05]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/29001/chrome_frame/chrome_frame...
File chrome_frame/chrome_frame.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/29001/chrome_frame/chrome_frame...
chrome_frame/chrome_frame.gyp:229: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
i think you need this on the chrome_frame_perftests target rather than the
chrome_frame_tests target.

[tonyg, 2013-08-28 16:11:46]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/29001/chrome_frame/chrome_frame...
File chrome_frame/chrome_frame.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23509002/diff/29001/chrome_frame/chrome_frame...
chrome_frame/chrome_frame.gyp:229: '../testing/perf/perf_test.gyp:*',
On 2013/08/28 15:04:05, grt wrote:
> i think you need this on the chrome_frame_perftests target rather than the
> chrome_frame_tests target.

Good catch. Fixed.

[grt (UTC plus 2), 2013-08-28 16:55:32]

lgtm if it passes the win and win_rel bots.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-08-28 17:18:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tonyg@chromium.org/23509002/43001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-08-28 19:02:17]

Sorry for I got bad news for ya.
Compile failed with a clobber build on mac.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=mac&number...
Your code is likely broken or HEAD is junk. Please ensure your
code is not broken then alert the build sheriffs.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-01 22:34:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tonyg@chromium.org/23509002/67001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-01 23:33:35]

Sorry for I got bad news for ya.
Compile failed with a clobber build on mac.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=mac&number...
Your code is likely broken or HEAD is junk. Please ensure your
code is not broken then alert the build sheriffs.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-01 23:48:21]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tonyg@chromium.org/23509002/79001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-02 05:27:46]

Change committed as 220803