Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

This probably used to be an optimization which made sense when we had
<style scoped> implemented. Now, it should be equally cheap to just
check the ScopedStyleResolver member. The ScopedStyleResolver is null
when there are no active stylesheets in the tree-scope.

This also caused issue 659596 because we only registered style elements
and not link elements, which lead the code to believe there were no
rules to match from the scope when there were only link stylesheets
present.

R=kochi@chromium.org,hayato@chromium.org
BUG=659596
Committed: https://crrev.com/4215d863dcedd407dc69d31addc731a7bc80a7e8
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#429824}

[rune, 2016-11-02 23:16:01]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-02 23:16:51]

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

[rune, 2016-11-02 23:18:00]

ptal

[rune, 2016-11-02 23:21:54]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

This probably used to be an optimization which made sense when we had
<style scoped> implemented. Now, it should be equally cheap to just
check the ScopedStyleResolver member.

This also caused issue 659596 because we only registered style elements
and not link elements, which lead the code to believe there were no
rules to match from the scope when there were only link stylesheets
present.

R=kochi@chromium.org,hayato@chromium.org
BUG=659596
==========

to

==========
Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

This probably used to be an optimization which made sense when we had
<style scoped> implemented. Now, it should be equally cheap to just
check the ScopedStyleResolver member. The ScopedStyleResolver is null
when there are no active stylesheets in the tree-scope.

This also caused issue 659596 because we only registered style elements
and not link elements, which lead the code to believe there were no
rules to match from the scope when there were only link stylesheets
present.

R=kochi@chromium.org,hayato@chromium.org
BUG=659596
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-03 00:47:11]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-03 00:47:11]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[rune, 2016-11-03 10:48:30]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-03 10:48:41]

Dry run: 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, 2016-11-03 13:43:24]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-03 13:43:25]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[kochi, 2016-11-04 01:57:08]

LGTM

Thanks for fixing the problem so quickly!

[rune, 2016-11-04 07:20:34]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-04 07:20:46]

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, 2016-11-04 07:25:54]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

This probably used to be an optimization which made sense when we had
<style scoped> implemented. Now, it should be equally cheap to just
check the ScopedStyleResolver member. The ScopedStyleResolver is null
when there are no active stylesheets in the tree-scope.

This also caused issue 659596 because we only registered style elements
and not link elements, which lead the code to believe there were no
rules to match from the scope when there were only link stylesheets
present.

R=kochi@chromium.org,hayato@chromium.org
BUG=659596
==========

to

==========
Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

This probably used to be an optimization which made sense when we had
<style scoped> implemented. Now, it should be equally cheap to just
check the ScopedStyleResolver member. The ScopedStyleResolver is null
when there are no active stylesheets in the tree-scope.

This also caused issue 659596 because we only registered style elements
and not link elements, which lead the code to believe there were no
rules to match from the scope when there were only link stylesheets
present.

R=kochi@chromium.org,hayato@chromium.org
BUG=659596
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-04 07:25:56]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-04 07:28:59]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

This probably used to be an optimization which made sense when we had
<style scoped> implemented. Now, it should be equally cheap to just
check the ScopedStyleResolver member. The ScopedStyleResolver is null
when there are no active stylesheets in the tree-scope.

This also caused issue 659596 because we only registered style elements
and not link elements, which lead the code to believe there were no
rules to match from the scope when there were only link stylesheets
present.

R=kochi@chromium.org,hayato@chromium.org
BUG=659596
==========

to

==========
Remove ShadowRoot::numberOfStyles().

This probably used to be an optimization which made sense when we had
<style scoped> implemented. Now, it should be equally cheap to just
check the ScopedStyleResolver member. The ScopedStyleResolver is null
when there are no active stylesheets in the tree-scope.

This also caused issue 659596 because we only registered style elements
and not link elements, which lead the code to believe there were no
rules to match from the scope when there were only link stylesheets
present.

R=kochi@chromium.org,hayato@chromium.org
BUG=659596

Committed: https://crrev.com/4215d863dcedd407dc69d31addc731a7bc80a7e8
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#429824}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-04 07:29:02]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/4215d863dcedd407dc69d31addc731a7bc80a7e8
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#429824}