Reland: Run gl_unittests with Ozone X11.

Reland: Run gl_unittests with Ozone X11.

Add a new test target gl_unittests_ozonex that runs with
--ozone-platform=x11. The Ozone CrOS bot will now run gl_unittests with
both Ozone headless and Ozone X11.

The test requires an X server to be running on the bot. The mb.py script
is modified to look for GN arg use_ozone=true and runtime flag
--ozone-platform=x11. In this case, it runs the test using xvfb.

Original commit crrev.com/2493063003 was reverted due to
crbug.com/665895. There was no dependency on xdisplaycheck by the new
test target that needs it. This caused problems during the isolate step
when xdisplaycheck wasn't found.

BUG=664570
Committed: https://crrev.com/50abf5a8708a126e65c1d709b2488ef5080b19d7
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#435000}

[kylechar, 2016-11-17 19:08:06]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-17 19:09:01]

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, 2016-11-17 20:07:58]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-17 20:07:59]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_arm64_dbg_recipe on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_arm6...)
  android_clang_dbg_recipe on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_clan...)

[kylechar, 2016-11-17 21:58:40]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-17 21:59:48]

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, 2016-11-17 22:54:34]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-17 22:54:34]

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

[kylechar, 2016-11-18 13:06:39]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-18 13:06:55]

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, 2016-11-18 14:31:36]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-18 14:31:37]

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

[kylechar, 2016-11-28 18:53:03]

kylechar@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dpranke@chromium.org, sadrul@chromium.org

[kylechar, 2016-11-28 18:53:03]

I think the original problem with isolate step occurred that got the CL reverted
was because the test didn't have a data_dep on xdisplaycheck.

[Dirk Pranke, 2016-11-28 19:04:27]

dpranke@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thomasanderson@chromium.org

[Dirk Pranke, 2016-11-28 19:04:28]

lgtm, but make sure this is consistent with the stuff Tom's working on.

[Tom (Use chromium acct), 2016-11-28 19:13:50]

On 2016/11/28 19:04:28, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> lgtm, but make sure this is consistent with the stuff Tom's working on.

I'm in the process of removing xdisplaycheck
https://codereview.chromium.org/2526663002/
https://codereview.chromium.org/2530463002/
https://codereview.chromium.org/2521353003/

kylechar@ I think we can just remove the added dependency on xdisplaycheck in
the second CL above, right?  If that's the case then lgtm

[kylechar, 2016-11-28 19:17:08]

On 2016/11/28 19:13:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On 2016/11/28 19:04:28, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > lgtm, but make sure this is consistent with the stuff Tom's working on.
> 
> I'm in the process of removing xdisplaycheck
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2526663002/
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2530463002/
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2521353003/
> 
> kylechar@ I think we can just remove the added dependency on xdisplaycheck in
> the second CL above, right?  If that's the case then lgtm

Yep, removing it in the second CL would be be fine. I'm only adding the
dependency because xvfb expects xdisplaycheck to be there now.

[Tom (Use chromium acct), 2016-11-28 21:42:21]

On 2016/11/28 19:17:08, kylechar wrote:
> On 2016/11/28 19:13:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
> > On 2016/11/28 19:04:28, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > > lgtm, but make sure this is consistent with the stuff Tom's working on.
> > 
> > I'm in the process of removing xdisplaycheck
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2526663002/
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2530463002/
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2521353003/
> > 
> > kylechar@ I think we can just remove the added dependency on xdisplaycheck
in
> > the second CL above, right?  If that's the case then lgtm
> 
> Yep, removing it in the second CL would be be fine. I'm only adding the
> dependency because xvfb expects xdisplaycheck to be there now.

sgtm.  Is this ready to land?

[kylechar, 2016-11-28 21:43:35]

On 2016/11/28 21:42:21, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On 2016/11/28 19:17:08, kylechar wrote:
> > On 2016/11/28 19:13:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
> > > On 2016/11/28 19:04:28, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > > > lgtm, but make sure this is consistent with the stuff Tom's working on.
> > > 
> > > I'm in the process of removing xdisplaycheck
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2526663002/
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2530463002/
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2521353003/
> > > 
> > > kylechar@ I think we can just remove the added dependency on xdisplaycheck
> in
> > > the second CL above, right?  If that's the case then lgtm
> > 
> > Yep, removing it in the second CL would be be fine. I'm only adding the
> > dependency because xvfb expects xdisplaycheck to be there now.
> 
> sgtm.  Is this ready to land?

Just waiting on lgtm from sadrul and then yes.

[sadrul, 2016-11-29 02:11:54]

lgtm

[sadrul, 2016-11-29 02:15:54]

On 2016/11/28 19:13:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On 2016/11/28 19:04:28, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > lgtm, but make sure this is consistent with the stuff Tom's working on.
> 
> I'm in the process of removing xdisplaycheck
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2526663002/
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2530463002/
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2521353003/

Hi! Curious to know whether there is going to be replacement for xdisplaycheck,
or whether xdisplaycheck is moving into third-party, or whether we just don't
need it anymore. (among other things, it verifies that the bot has XInput2,
because some chrome code depends on that)

> 
> kylechar@ I think we can just remove the added dependency on xdisplaycheck in
> the second CL above, right?  If that's the case then lgtm

[Tom (Use chromium acct), 2016-11-29 02:34:02]

On 2016/11/29 02:15:54, sadrul wrote:
> On 2016/11/28 19:13:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
> > On 2016/11/28 19:04:28, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > > lgtm, but make sure this is consistent with the stuff Tom's working on.
> > 
> > I'm in the process of removing xdisplaycheck
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2526663002/
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2530463002/
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2521353003/
> 
> Hi! Curious to know whether there is going to be replacement for
xdisplaycheck,
> or whether xdisplaycheck is moving into third-party, or whether we just don't
> need it anymore. (among other things, it verifies that the bot has XInput2,
> because some chrome code depends on that)
> 

It's not needed any more because xvfb-run replaces it.  Looks like checking for
xinput2 is the only other thing it does (please point out anything else if I'm
wrong).
We can always add that check back directly in xvfb.py

> > 
> > kylechar@ I think we can just remove the added dependency on xdisplaycheck
in
> > the second CL above, right?  If that's the case then lgtm

[kylechar, 2016-11-29 14:25:57]

The CQ bit was checked by kylechar@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-29 14:26:09]

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, 2016-11-29 16:03:12]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 40001, "attempt_start_ts": 1480429557769060,
"parent_rev": "68babd163940e5bc0385025d4f7e932d9a53cae4", "commit_rev":
"9889f43be7e8422a99e2c50c35f55534a32648d3"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-29 16:03:37]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-29 16:06:21]

Description was changed from

==========
Reland: Run gl_unittests with Ozone X11.

Add a new test target gl_unittests_ozonex that runs with
--ozone-platform=x11. The Ozone CrOS bot will now run gl_unittests with
both Ozone headless and Ozone X11.

The test requires an X server to be running on the bot. The mb.py script
is modified to look for GN arg use_ozone=true and runtime flag
--ozone-platform=x11. In this case, it runs the test using xvfb.

Original commit crrev.com/2493063003 was reverted due to
crbug.com/665895. There was no dependency on xdisplaycheck by the new
test target that needs it. This caused problems during the isolate step
when xdisplaycheck wasn't found.

BUG=664570
==========

to

==========
Reland: Run gl_unittests with Ozone X11.

Add a new test target gl_unittests_ozonex that runs with
--ozone-platform=x11. The Ozone CrOS bot will now run gl_unittests with
both Ozone headless and Ozone X11.

The test requires an X server to be running on the bot. The mb.py script
is modified to look for GN arg use_ozone=true and runtime flag
--ozone-platform=x11. In this case, it runs the test using xvfb.

Original commit crrev.com/2493063003 was reverted due to
crbug.com/665895. There was no dependency on xdisplaycheck by the new
test target that needs it. This caused problems during the isolate step
when xdisplaycheck wasn't found.

BUG=664570

Committed: https://crrev.com/50abf5a8708a126e65c1d709b2488ef5080b19d7
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#435000}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-29 16:06:22]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/50abf5a8708a126e65c1d709b2488ef5080b19d7
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#435000}