Change 'LOG(ERROR)' to 'VLOG(1)' in mojo bits.

Change 'LOG(ERROR)' to 'VLOG(1)' in mojo bits.

These are likely important messages to capture, but they're not
important enough to fill developers' logs when testing locally.

BUG=656875, 664154

[Mike West, 2016-11-10 14:37:28]

mkwst@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ ben@chromium.org, rockot@google.com

[Mike West, 2016-11-10 14:37:29]

Hey ben@, rockot@: WDYT of this small change?

[Ben Goodger (Google), 2016-11-10 14:44:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
File services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc:210: VLOG(1) <<
ss.str();
We should leave this one as LOG(ERROR). It's important for debugging issues on
bots & pretty much anytime you see it it represents a catastrophic failure.

[Mike West, 2016-11-10 15:07:43]

On 2016/11/10 at 14:44:08, ben wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
> File services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
> services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc:210: VLOG(1) <<
ss.str();
> We should leave this one as LOG(ERROR). It's important for debugging issues on
bots & pretty much anytime you see it it represents a catastrophic failure.

Can we be more aggressive, then? I've seen
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=664154 for at least a day
or two now; perhaps if we crashed (as it looks like we do if
`CanBindRequestForInterface` fails), folks would be more inclined to fix the
issue?

[Ben Goodger (Google), 2016-11-10 18:31:31]

On 2016/11/10 15:07:43, Mike West wrote:
> On 2016/11/10 at 14:44:08, ben wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
> > File services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
> > services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc:210: VLOG(1)
<<
> ss.str();
> > We should leave this one as LOG(ERROR). It's important for debugging issues
on
> bots & pretty much anytime you see it it represents a catastrophic failure.
> 
> Can we be more aggressive, then? I've seen
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=664154 for at least a
day
> or two now; perhaps if we crashed (as it looks like we do if
> `CanBindRequestForInterface` fails), folks would be more inclined to fix the
> issue?

Possibly, yeah. I think I made this an error only out of habit of not wanting to
crash test suites on the first failure, but the suite runners these days handle
that.

[Ben Goodger (Google), 2016-11-10 18:33:41]

On 2016/11/10 18:31:31, Ben Goodger (Google) wrote:
> On 2016/11/10 15:07:43, Mike West wrote:
> > On 2016/11/10 at 14:44:08, ben wrote:
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
> > > File services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc
(right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495523002/diff/1/services/service_manager/pu...
> > > services/service_manager/public/cpp/lib/interface_registry.cc:210: VLOG(1)
> <<
> > ss.str();
> > > We should leave this one as LOG(ERROR). It's important for debugging
issues
> on
> > bots & pretty much anytime you see it it represents a catastrophic failure.
> > 
> > Can we be more aggressive, then? I've seen
> > https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=664154 for at least a
> day
> > or two now; perhaps if we crashed (as it looks like we do if
> > `CanBindRequestForInterface` fails), folks would be more inclined to fix the
> > issue?
> 
> Possibly, yeah. I think I made this an error only out of habit of not wanting
to
> crash test suites on the first failure, but the suite runners these days
handle
> that.

Specifically, we should crash the client by calling ReportBadMessage the way we
do for a request blocked by spec below. We should not crash the server, because
that would allow a rogue client to trivially take down the browser.

[Mike West, 2016-11-11 09:58:04]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-11 09:58:21]

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, 2016-11-11 10:35:06]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-11 10:35:07]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  blimp_linux_dbg on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/blimp_linux_dbg...)