Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

This is being done in preparation to install the core js bindings into
window.mojo in this patch: https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/.

This patch makes sense even independently because the concept of
modules belongs to gin, not mojo.

BUG=647036
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2642873002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#444923}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/a3aeda6bc69b867f4a7eac5328420705b830fa21

[alokp, 2017-01-18 17:53:30]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 17:54:07]

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, 2017-01-18 19:27:48]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 19:27:49]

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

[alokp, 2017-01-18 21:43:09]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 21:43:50]

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

[alokp, 2017-01-18 22:02:26]

Description was changed from

==========
Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

This is being done in preparation to install the core js bindings into
window.mojo in this patch: https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/

BUG=647036
==========

to

==========
Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

This is being done in preparation to install the core js bindings into
window.mojo in this patch: https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/.

This patch makes sense even independently because the concept of
modules belongs to gin, not mojo.

BUG=647036
==========

[alokp, 2017-01-18 22:06:37]

alokp@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jbroman@chromium.org, rockot@chromium.org

[alokp, 2017-01-18 22:06:38]

The patch is not as big as it looks. The main changes to review are in
mojo_context_state.cc and mojo-helpers.js.

Rest of the changes just removes check for window.testRunner and window.mojo
from files that do not even use them.

The availability of mojo is already being checked in mojo-helpers.html. If we
need a check for availability of mojo for certain tests, we can add it in
mojo-helpers.js.

[alokp, 2017-01-18 23:11:18]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 23:12:07]

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

[alokp, 2017-01-18 23:17:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 23:17:12]

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, 2017-01-19 00:50:25]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 00:50:26]

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

[alokp, 2017-01-19 05:35:56]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 05:36:18]

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, 2017-01-19 07:07:41]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 07:07:42]

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

[alokp, 2017-01-19 17:54:08]

Description was changed from

==========
Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

This is being done in preparation to install the core js bindings into
window.mojo in this patch: https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/.

This patch makes sense even independently because the concept of
modules belongs to gin, not mojo.

BUG=647036
==========

to

==========
Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

This is being done in preparation to install the core js bindings into
window.mojo in this patch: https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/.

This patch makes sense even independently because the concept of
modules belongs to gin, not mojo.

BUG=647036
==========

[jbroman, 2017-01-19 18:01:00]

lgtm

I assume that this is exposed for layout tests (hence why the global interface
listing expected result is affected), but not for general web content (i.e.
"window.gin" does not exist in Chrome after this patch), correct?

[alokp, 2017-01-19 18:03:35]

On 2017/01/19 18:01:00, jbroman wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> I assume that this is exposed for layout tests (hence why the global interface
> listing expected result is affected), but not for general web content (i.e.
> "window.gin" does not exist in Chrome after this patch), correct?

Correct - window.gin is only exposed for layout tests. See the change in
mojo_context_state.cc.

[alokp, 2017-01-19 22:14:35]

alokp@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ esprehn@chromium.org

[alokp, 2017-01-19 22:14:36]

esprehn: content/renderer/mojo_context_state.cc

[esprehn, 2017-01-19 23:02:32]

lgtm okay, fwiw this doesn't conflict with the other match since that one is
Mojo and this is mojo. :)

[alokp, 2017-01-19 23:17:25]

On 2017/01/19 23:02:32, esprehn wrote:
> lgtm okay, fwiw this doesn't conflict with the other match since that one is
> Mojo and this is mojo. :)

The instance of Mojo will be installed as window.mojo though:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/diff/470001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...

[alokp, 2017-01-19 23:25:37]

The CQ bit was checked by alokp@chromium.org

[alokp, 2017-01-19 23:25:38]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
jbroman@chromium.org, esprehn@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2642873002/#ps130001
(title: "rebaseline")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 23:26:22]

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

[esprehn, 2017-01-19 23:36:34]

On 2017/01/19 at 23:17:25, alokp wrote:
> On 2017/01/19 23:02:32, esprehn wrote:
> > lgtm okay, fwiw this doesn't conflict with the other match since that one is
> > Mojo and this is mojo. :)
> 
> The instance of Mojo will be installed as window.mojo though:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/diff/470001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...

Hmm that needs some more thought then. If we're just creating a bare instance
like that the page should just do "new Mojo" or the methods should be static on
the Mojo object.

[alokp, 2017-01-19 23:47:31]

On 2017/01/19 23:36:34, esprehn wrote:
> On 2017/01/19 at 23:17:25, alokp wrote:
> > On 2017/01/19 23:02:32, esprehn wrote:
> > > lgtm okay, fwiw this doesn't conflict with the other match since that one
is
> > > Mojo and this is mojo. :)
> > 
> > The instance of Mojo will be installed as window.mojo though:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/diff/470001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
> 
> Hmm that needs some more thought then. If we're just creating a bare instance
> like that the page should just do "new Mojo" or the methods should be static
on
> the Mojo object.

Sure. We can discuss that in the other patch. A static method on Mojo object
should work for the current usecase.

This change still makes sense IMO because module is not a mojo concept.

[esprehn, 2017-01-20 01:04:41]

On 2017/01/19 at 23:47:31, alokp wrote:
> On 2017/01/19 23:36:34, esprehn wrote:
> > On 2017/01/19 at 23:17:25, alokp wrote:
> > > On 2017/01/19 23:02:32, esprehn wrote:
> > > > lgtm okay, fwiw this doesn't conflict with the other match since that
one is
> > > > Mojo and this is mojo. :)
> > > 
> > > The instance of Mojo will be installed as window.mojo though:
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/diff/470001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
> > 
> > Hmm that needs some more thought then. If we're just creating a bare
instance
> > like that the page should just do "new Mojo" or the methods should be static
on
> > the Mojo object.
> 
> Sure. We can discuss that in the other patch. A static method on Mojo object
should work for the current usecase.
> 
> This change still makes sense IMO because module is not a mojo concept.

Yeah makes sense.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-20 01:30:22]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 130001, "attempt_start_ts": 1484868337664770,
"parent_rev": "c11261f706e9a25dd873f3a9d9d269f3af61939d", "commit_rev":
"a3aeda6bc69b867f4a7eac5328420705b830fa21"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-20 01:30:54]

Description was changed from

==========
Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

This is being done in preparation to install the core js bindings into
window.mojo in this patch: https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/.

This patch makes sense even independently because the concept of
modules belongs to gin, not mojo.

BUG=647036
==========

to

==========
Moves mojo.define -> gin.define.

This is being done in preparation to install the core js bindings into
window.mojo in this patch: https://codereview.chromium.org/2400563002/.

This patch makes sense even independently because the concept of
modules belongs to gin, not mojo.

BUG=647036

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2642873002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#444923}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/a3aeda6bc69b867f4a7eac532842...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-20 01:30:55]

Committed patchset #8 (id:130001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/a3aeda6bc69b867f4a7eac532842...

[timvolodine, 2017-01-26 20:28:09]

On 2017/01/20 01:30:55, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Committed patchset #8 (id:130001) as
>
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/a3aeda6bc69b867f4a7eac532842...

question:
is there any reason to why
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/stable/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt
has been deleted?
It was used in one of our tests (which is now broken) hence the question.

[alokp, 2017-01-26 20:33:51]

On 2017/01/26 20:28:09, timvolodine wrote:
> On 2017/01/20 01:30:55, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > Committed patchset #8 (id:130001) as
> >
>
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/a3aeda6bc69b867f4a7eac532842...
> 
> question:
> is there any reason to why
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/stable/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt
> has been deleted?
> It was used in one of our tests (which is now broken) hence the question.

Sorry for the trouble. I did not delete it manually. I used the instructions
here to rebaseline the affected tests:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/layout_t...

Where is your test? And do you depend on this expectation file?

[timvolodine, 2017-01-26 20:39:00]

On 2017/01/26 20:33:51, alokp wrote:
> On 2017/01/26 20:28:09, timvolodine wrote:
> > On 2017/01/20 01:30:55, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > > Committed patchset #8 (id:130001) as
> > >
> >
>
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/a3aeda6bc69b867f4a7eac532842...
> > 
> > question:
> > is there any reason to why
> >
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/stable/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt
> > has been deleted?
> > It was used in one of our tests (which is now broken) hence the question.
> 
> Sorry for the trouble. I did not delete it manually. I used the instructions
> here to rebaseline the affected tests:
>
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/layout_t...
> 
> Where is your test? And do you depend on this expectation file?

the test is a webview inclusion test (checks the webview interfaces against the
stable chrome interfaces) that runs on bots on the android waterfall. And yes it
does depend on stable interfaces. Unless there is another version somewhere but
AFAIK there is not.

[foolip, 2017-05-29 11:33:38]

foolip@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ foolip@chromium.org

[foolip, 2017-05-29 11:33:40]

The deletion of
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/platform/linux/virtual/stable/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt
here appears to have made it possible to accidentally ship things on stable as
in https://codereview.chromium.org/2883763002/, will try to restore that
-expected.txt.

[jbroman, 2017-05-29 15:10:07]

On 2017/05/29 at 11:33:40, foolip wrote:
> The deletion of
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/platform/linux/virtual/stable/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt
here appears to have made it possible to accidentally ship things on stable as
in https://codereview.chromium.org/2883763002/, will try to restore that
-expected.txt.

At this time, the cross-platform
LayoutTests/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt existed, which is
why the linux one was no longer required. I'd look for the CL that caused that
and platform/linux to both not exist.

[foolip, 2017-05-29 16:03:47]

On 2017/05/29 15:10:07, jbroman wrote:
> On 2017/05/29 at 11:33:40, foolip wrote:
> > The deletion of
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/platform/linux/virtual/stable/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt
> here appears to have made it possible to accidentally ship things on stable as
> in https://codereview.chromium.org/2883763002/, will try to restore that
> -expected.txt.
> 
> At this time, the cross-platform
> LayoutTests/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt existed, which is
> why the linux one was no longer required. I'd look for the CL that caused that
> and platform/linux to both not exist.

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice that I had /platform/linux/ in that long path.
Updating https://crbug.com/727287