[spellcheck] Updated Hunspell to 1.5.4

Also, updated google.patch, README.chromium, BUILD.gn. Removed unused files.

BUG=643804
Committed: https://crrev.com/047b36f906a4d3b957a2d7869eb41cdd74027fcb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#438176}

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-01 15:31:34]

Description was changed from

==========
Updated README.chromium


Applied patch, fixed up our (2) calls to it and updated patch.


Dumped in files. Nuked removed files.

BUG=
==========

to

==========
Also, updated google.patch, README.chromium, BUILD.gn. Removed unused files.

BUG=643804
==========

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-01 15:31:35]

krb@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ groby@chromium.org

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-01 15:37:37]

All tests pass now! Also, spot-checked spell-checking within Chrome.

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-12-01 17:51:14]

Mostly OK, but the patch is really confusing to me - there's a lot of stuff in
there that doesn't seem to belong.

Did you clean up code, or leave debug code in?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
File third_party/hunspell/google.patch (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:237: class LIBHUNSPELL_DLL_EXPORTED AffixMgr
Did hunspell kill the prefix, or did we?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:300: +  // the pointer to our line buffer if
we can read a line without errors.
Are we still mimicking getline in the error case? Should we clear() line?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
File third_party/hunspell/google.patch (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:137: // affix type
Do we need this comment? It doesn't say anything, and it's a different comment
style

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:147: @@ -1281,6 +1340,24 @@ std::string
AffixMgr::prefix_check_twosfx_morph(const char* word,
Why is this in the google patch? This seems straight up hunspell?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:242: int fullstrip;
Why did the spacing change here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:320: #include <fstream>
Why the new includes?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:371: tableptr(NULL),
I'll stop calling out code that seems to be cleanup :)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:482: @@ -376,6 +445,12 @@ int
HashMgr::get_clen_and_captype(const std::string& word, int* captype) {
Where does this function come from?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:558: // open dictionary file
Why do we need to open a file in non-Chrome code?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:570: // algorithm borrowed
If we're adding comments - from where was it borrowed?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:575: unsigned long hv = 0;
Is this a bugfix?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:728: #include "w_char.hxx"
Why add this?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:945: delete[] csconv;
Where did this come from?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:979: int info2 = 0;
info2?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/1/third_party/hunspell/google...
third_party/hunspell/google.patch:1004: @@ -992,9 +1053,9 @@
std::vector<std::string> HunspellImpl::suggest(const std::string& word) {
There's a bunch of code that seems odd in the patch - non-Chrome client, and
entire functions of it. Did the patch generation go wrong?

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-01 18:40:18]

The patch file includes context - lines that we didn't change - even if I pass
'-u' to git diff. Between 2 versions of google.patch, this context may change.
You commented on several of these changes, which Hunspell made.

The indicator that it's really in the patch - a change that we make to Hunspell
- is if the line has a + or - sign at the left, not that it's colored in a diff.

I'm not sure if you want me to address the comments, or if you just want to go
back through and highlight the truly suspicious ones.

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-12-01 20:05:39]

On 2016/12/01 18:40:18, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> The patch file includes context - lines that we didn't change - even if I pass
> '-u' to git diff. Between 2 versions of google.patch, this context may change.
> You commented on several of these changes, which Hunspell made.
> 
> The indicator that it's really in the patch - a change that we make to
Hunspell
> - is if the line has a + or - sign at the left, not that it's colored in a
diff.
> 
> I'm not sure if you want me to address the comments, or if you just want to go
> back through and highlight the truly suspicious ones.

I'll re-review. Parsing a diff to a diff is confusing :)

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-12-01 20:06:08]

On 2016/12/01 20:05:39, groby wrote:
> On 2016/12/01 18:40:18, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> > The patch file includes context - lines that we didn't change - even if I
pass
> > '-u' to git diff. Between 2 versions of google.patch, this context may
change.
> > You commented on several of these changes, which Hunspell made.
> > 
> > The indicator that it's really in the patch - a change that we make to
> Hunspell
> > - is if the line has a + or - sign at the left, not that it's colored in a
> diff.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if you want me to address the comments, or if you just want to
go
> > back through and highlight the truly suspicious ones.
> 
> I'll re-review. Parsing a diff to a diff is confusing :)

Corollary: Do you mind uploading it as a second patchset, so all the old
comments are gone?

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-01 20:42:39]

On 2016/12/01 20:06:08, groby wrote:
> On 2016/12/01 20:05:39, groby wrote:
> > On 2016/12/01 18:40:18, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> > > The patch file includes context - lines that we didn't change - even if I
> pass
> > > '-u' to git diff. Between 2 versions of google.patch, this context may
> change.
> > > You commented on several of these changes, which Hunspell made.
> > > 
> > > The indicator that it's really in the patch - a change that we make to
> > Hunspell
> > > - is if the line has a + or - sign at the left, not that it's colored in a
> > diff.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure if you want me to address the comments, or if you just want
to
> go
> > > back through and highlight the truly suspicious ones.
> > 
> > I'll re-review. Parsing a diff to a diff is confusing :)
> 
> Corollary: Do you mind uploading it as a second patchset, so all the old
> comments are gone?

Re-uploaded. All comments seem to be gone.

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-05 20:50:51]

On 2016/12/01 20:42:39, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> On 2016/12/01 20:06:08, groby wrote:
> > On 2016/12/01 20:05:39, groby wrote:
> > > On 2016/12/01 18:40:18, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> > > > The patch file includes context - lines that we didn't change - even if
I
> > pass
> > > > '-u' to git diff. Between 2 versions of google.patch, this context may
> > change.
> > > > You commented on several of these changes, which Hunspell made.
> > > > 
> > > > The indicator that it's really in the patch - a change that we make to
> > > Hunspell
> > > > - is if the line has a + or - sign at the left, not that it's colored in
a
> > > diff.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure if you want me to address the comments, or if you just want
> to
> > go
> > > > back through and highlight the truly suspicious ones.
> > > 
> > > I'll re-review. Parsing a diff to a diff is confusing :)
> > 
> > Corollary: Do you mind uploading it as a second patchset, so all the old
> > comments are gone?
> 
> Re-uploaded. All comments seem to be gone.

ping? Did the upload not do what you wanted?

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-12-05 21:36:00]

On 2016/12/05 20:50:51, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> On 2016/12/01 20:42:39, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> > On 2016/12/01 20:06:08, groby wrote:
> > > On 2016/12/01 20:05:39, groby wrote:
> > > > On 2016/12/01 18:40:18, Kevin Bailey wrote:
> > > > > The patch file includes context - lines that we didn't change - even
if
> I
> > > pass
> > > > > '-u' to git diff. Between 2 versions of google.patch, this context may
> > > change.
> > > > > You commented on several of these changes, which Hunspell made.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The indicator that it's really in the patch - a change that we make to
> > > > Hunspell
> > > > > - is if the line has a + or - sign at the left, not that it's colored
in
> a
> > > > diff.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not sure if you want me to address the comments, or if you just
want
> > to
> > > go
> > > > > back through and highlight the truly suspicious ones.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll re-review. Parsing a diff to a diff is confusing :)
> > > 
> > > Corollary: Do you mind uploading it as a second patchset, so all the old
> > > comments are gone?
> > 
> > Re-uploaded. All comments seem to be gone.
> 
> ping? Did the upload not do what you wanted?

It did, but I didn't get to the review yet. Thanks for the ping, will have more
in ~15-30 minutes.

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-12-05 22:00:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/10001/third_party/hunspell/sr...
File third_party/hunspell/src/hunspell/license.hunspell (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/10001/third_party/hunspell/sr...
third_party/hunspell/src/hunspell/license.hunspell:1: /* ***** BEGIN LICENSE
BLOCK *****
Did you remove this? The main repo seems to still have it, and shows it as never
removed?

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-05 22:22:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/10001/third_party/hunspell/sr...
File third_party/hunspell/src/hunspell/license.hunspell (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/10001/third_party/hunspell/sr...
third_party/hunspell/src/hunspell/license.hunspell:1: /* ***** BEGIN LICENSE
BLOCK *****
On 2016/12/05 22:00:36, groby wrote:
> Did you remove this? The main repo seems to still have it, and shows it as
never
> removed?

Weird. I saw that affixmgr.cxx changed from including them to copy-pasting them,
so I guess that blinded me to their presence. (Re)added.

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2016-12-07 19:22:16]

On 2016/12/05 22:22:20, Kevin Bailey wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/10001/third_party/hunspell/sr...
> File third_party/hunspell/src/hunspell/license.hunspell (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/diff/10001/third_party/hunspell/sr...
> third_party/hunspell/src/hunspell/license.hunspell:1: /* ***** BEGIN LICENSE
> BLOCK *****
> On 2016/12/05 22:00:36, groby wrote:
> > Did you remove this? The main repo seems to still have it, and shows it as
> never
> > removed?
> 
> Weird. I saw that affixmgr.cxx changed from including them to copy-pasting
them,
> so I guess that blinded me to their presence. (Re)added.

Assuming 
* all hunspell code is a straightforward import.
* Only the mentioned files were updated.
* the patch was updated according to README.chromium

LGTM % nit

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-13 14:21:44]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-13 14:21:51]

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, 2016-12-13 15:24:41]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-13 15:24:42]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-13 15:33:27]

The CQ bit was checked by krb@chromium.org

[Kevin Bailey, 2016-12-13 15:33:27]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from groby@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003/#ps110001
(title: "Updated patch with encoding change")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-13 15:33:55]

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, 2016-12-13 15:41:29]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 110001, "attempt_start_ts": 1481643207080470,
"parent_rev": "f0ebbecb7e9308bfa34f21cc9b6463748a222bd3", "commit_rev":
"6a65eb3b9c545df4929e6e3204ac6148e557bb57"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-13 15:41:59]

Description was changed from

==========
Also, updated google.patch, README.chromium, BUILD.gn. Removed unused files.

BUG=643804
==========

to

==========
Also, updated google.patch, README.chromium, BUILD.gn. Removed unused files.

BUG=643804

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-13 15:42:00]

Committed patchset #12 (id:110001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-13 15:43:37]

Description was changed from

==========
Also, updated google.patch, README.chromium, BUILD.gn. Removed unused files.

BUG=643804

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2544793003
==========

to

==========
Also, updated google.patch, README.chromium, BUILD.gn. Removed unused files.

BUG=643804

Committed: https://crrev.com/047b36f906a4d3b957a2d7869eb41cdd74027fcb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#438176}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-13 15:43:38]

Patchset 12 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/047b36f906a4d3b957a2d7869eb41cdd74027fcb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#438176}