Roll ICU to icu52

Roll ICU to icu52

The ICU update does the following among other things:
  - Update EUC-JP (no more JIS X 212 round-trip coverage) per WHATWG
    encoding spec.
  - Add CP866
  - Add far better/more extensive support for plural, format, etc
  - Numerous locale data update
  - Khmer/Lao line/word-breaking support
  - More compact Chinese/Japanese dictionary (now a part of the upstream
    instead of our local patch)
  - Better plural support that we plan to use right away.

- Update icu/BUILD.gn : file list update, new defines, etc.
- Update tests
  a. icu_string_conversions_unittests : drop iscii (nobody uses it) and
     remove JIS X 212 code points from the round-trip test
  b. l10n_util_unittests: Display names for zh-*.
  c. ThaiSnippet's expected result. (due to a Unicode grapheme definition change).
  d. Update Expected results in file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js
     (see http://crbug.com/383930)
- Update SpellcheckerWordIterator
  a. Add U+0027 back to MidNumLet
  b. Add Lao and Khmer scripts to the list of scripts requiring dictionary-based
     word-breaking.
- l10n_util : alias 'tl' to 'fil' (Tagalog to Filipino)
- Update IdentityInternalsSingleTokenWebUITest.verifyGetters (DateTimeFormat-Full
  has 'at' before time, which is not handled by Date.parse()
- update license.py because we don't have a separate Chinese/Japanese
  dictionary any more. It's now a part of ICU

Note to Sheriff :
1. 140 ~ 200 kB size increase is expected for all platforms.
This size increase was singed off by laforge@.
The expected size has to be updated with both reva/revb pointing to the
revision corresponding to this CL.

2.  http://codereview.chromium.org/348913002 has to be applied before running make_expectations.py to update tools/perf_expectations/perf_expectations.json
after this CL is landed.


BUG=132145, 277023, 136148, 360433, 364072
TEST=base_unittests:*ICU*, net_unittests:*IDN*, ui_unittests:*Lang*,
     browser_tests (encoding related, Iden*verifyGet*),
     unit_tests:Ext*L10*, unit_tests:*Lang*, component_tests:*Snipp*,
     layout tests (encoding, date/calendar, line breaking, and others),
     build 'base_i18n_nacl', GN build bots.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=277111

R=arv@chromium.org, brettw@chromium.org, fgorski@chromium.org, groby@chromium.org, hirono@chromium.org, tony@chromium.org, toyoshim@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=284167

[fgorski, 2014-06-03 23:31:37]

identity-internals browser tests lgtm

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-07 09:19:26]

groby : can you review spellchecker_word iterator (I made a minimal change to
account for the difference between ICU 46 and 52)? 

brettw: can you take a look at GN build and icu string conversion tests? I have
to drop JIS X 212 because it's not supported any more by EUC-JP in HTML5
encoding spec. 

danakj: can you review translate unittest? 

thakis: can you do the owner review of chrome/ ? 

fgorski: thank you for your prompt review.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-07 09:23:50]

@tony, can you review l10n/l10n_utiil? 
@brettw, can you review component/query_parser/* as well? 

Thank you,

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-07 09:28:28]

@toyoshim : can you review chrome/browser/translate/* ?
@arv : can you owner-review chrome/browser/ui/webui/* ? 

Thank you

[brettw, 2014-06-07 22:11:41]

lgtm

[tony, 2014-06-08 19:20:51]

Neat!  LGTM

[Takashi Toyoshima, 2014-06-09 05:02:16]

translate/ lgtm

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-10 06:00:55]

@groby : can you review spellchecker? 
@arv : can you do the owner-approval for chrome/* ? 
Thanks

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-10 17:43:08]

On 2014/06/10 06:00:55, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> @groby : can you review spellchecker? 
> @arv : can you do the owner-approval for chrome/* ? 

@arv, what I meant is not chrome/* but chrome/browser/ui/webui/*.  

Thank you

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-10 17:44:24]

PS #9 just added a comment to spellchecker word iterator.

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2014-06-10 17:54:35]

LGTM

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2014-06-10 20:18:12]

LGTM - thanks for doing this!

https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/160001/chrome/renderer/spellch...
File chrome/renderer/spellchecker/spellcheck_worditerator.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/160001/chrome/renderer/spellch...
chrome/renderer/spellchecker/spellcheck_worditerator.cc:71: // has to be treated
as MidNumLet.
nit: Pointer to bug would be appreciated, so future generations (especially of
me ;) will know why.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-10 20:54:21]

Thank you, @groby ! 

I'll add this CL to CQ once Blinks rolls to/beyond 175868 (it's currently at
175866 : https://codereview.chromium.org/326453002/ ) after which several Blink
layout tests (currently marked as NeedManualRebaseline) will be rebaselined with
new ICU. 

Copying to mark@ : JFYI.

https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/160001/chrome/renderer/spellch...
File chrome/renderer/spellchecker/spellcheck_worditerator.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/160001/chrome/renderer/spellch...
chrome/renderer/spellchecker/spellcheck_worditerator.cc:71: // has to be treated
as MidNumLet.
On 2014/06/10 20:18:11, groby wrote:
> nit: Pointer to bug would be appreciated, so future generations (especially of
> me ;) will know why.

Done.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-10 22:25:00]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-10 22:25:59]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/180001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 09:15:31]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...)
  android_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_clang_dbg/bui...)
  android_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg/builds/19...)
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/chromium_presubmit/bu...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_clang_...)
  linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 09:23:31]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 09:23:32]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...)
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/chromium_presubmit/bu...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_clang_...)
  linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-11 10:38:36]

On 2014/06/11 09:23:32, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...)
>   chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/chromium_presubmit/bu...)
>   linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
>   linux_chromium_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_clang_...)
>   linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...)
>   linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

All the 5 failures happened in 'bot update' step. I've just started another go
at them. If they succeed (or fail again in bot-update step), I'll manually check
this in.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-11 10:55:54]

On 2014/06/11 10:38:36, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> On 2014/06/11 09:23:32, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > Try jobs failed on following builders:
> >   android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium
> >
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...)
> >   chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium
> >
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/chromium_presubmit/bu...)
> >   linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
> >
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
> >   linux_chromium_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
> >
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_clang_...)
> >   linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium
> >
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...)
> >   linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
> >
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)
> 
> All the 5 failures happened in 'bot update' step. I've just started another go
> at them. If they succeed (or fail again in bot-update step), I'll manually
check
> this in.

It turned out icu/BUILD.gn needs to be rebased. PS #11 does that. I'm running
the 5 try jobs. When they pass, I'll land manually.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-11 19:30:49]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 19:34:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/220001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 21:17:56]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_compile_...)
  mac_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 21:21:44]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 21:21:45]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_compile_...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-12 05:57:39]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 06:00:03]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/220001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 11:09:50]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 12:57:32]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 12:57:33]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-12 17:04:35]

On 2014/06/12 12:57:33, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)

Ick... apparently, a new set of tests were added depending on the exact output
of date-time format in en-US locale. A comma introduced in a newer CLDR/ICU led
to a failure because the expected formatted output does not have it.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-12 17:46:20]

On 2014/06/12 17:04:35, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> On 2014/06/12 12:57:33, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > Try jobs failed on following builders:
> >   linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
> >
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
> 
> Ick... apparently, a new set of tests were added depending on the exact output
> of date-time format in en-US locale. A comma introduced in a newer CLDR/ICU
led
> to a failure because the expected formatted output does not have it.

The test was added about a week ago. I've updated 'expected' to match the output
of the new CLDR/ICU date-time format in en-US. 
I also filed a bug to make the test robust wrt date-time format changes. (
	http://crbug.com/383930 )

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-13 00:25:30]

bot_update didn't switch icu to icu52 (from icu46). This happened once in the
past, but this time it happens 4 times in a row. I filed http://crbug.com/384132

In the meantime, I'll try once more (and also try to run browser_tests locally
with chromeos built on Linux)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-13 00:26:58]

@hirono, can you review test_util.js change (to update the expectation to match
the date-time format output with new CLDR/ICU)? Thanks

[hirono, 2014-06-13 02:32:22]

https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js:167:
* See http://crbug.com/383930
I'm not sure we should do this.
I'd like to track format change of date. If the changed format would not match
with the Files.app UI, we should handle this.
Because the format changes do not happen frequently, can we keep the expected
data as they are?

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-13 06:14:09]

On 2014/06/13 02:32:22, hirono wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> File
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
>
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js:167:
> * See http://crbug.com/383930
> I'm not sure we should do this.
> I'd like to track format change of date. If the changed format would not match
> with the Files.app UI, we should handle this.
> Because the format changes do not happen frequently, can we keep the expected
> data as they are?

I'm not sure what you meant by the above. If we don't add a comma in the
expected result, the test would fail.  (the failure with PS #13 is due to
http://crbug.com/384132, btw). 

Or, are you talking about using 'Date' instead of 'string' in TestEntry (as I
suggested in http://crbug.com/383930 )? 

This CL does not do that. This CL just updates the expected result in *string*
to match the output of Files.app UI (which comes from ICU/CLDR). 

As for what to put in TestEntry, please feel free to add your thought to
http://crbug.com/383930   

In the meantime, can you approve the change
file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js (to update the expected output)? 

Thank you.

[hirono, 2014-06-13 06:23:17]

On 2014/06/13 06:14:09, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> On 2014/06/13 02:32:22, hirono wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> > File
> chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js
> > (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> >
>
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js:167:
> > * See http://crbug.com/383930
> > I'm not sure we should do this.
> > I'd like to track format change of date. If the changed format would not
match
> > with the Files.app UI, we should handle this.
> > Because the format changes do not happen frequently, can we keep the
expected
> > data as they are?
> 
> I'm not sure what you meant by the above. If we don't add a comma in the
> expected result, the test would fail.  (the failure with PS #13 is due to
> http://crbug.com/384132, btw). 
> 
> Or, are you talking about using 'Date' instead of 'string' in TestEntry (as I
> suggested in http://crbug.com/383930 )? 
> 
> This CL does not do that. This CL just updates the expected result in *string*
> to match the output of Files.app UI (which comes from ICU/CLDR). 
> 
> As for what to put in TestEntry, please feel free to add your thought to
> http://crbug.com/383930   
> 
> In the meantime, can you approve the change
> file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js (to update the expected output)? 
> 
> Thank you.

I'm talking about http://crbug.com/383930. Let me move on the bug thread.

[hirono, 2014-06-13 06:43:49]

On 2014/06/13 06:23:17, hirono wrote:
> On 2014/06/13 06:14:09, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> > On 2014/06/13 02:32:22, hirono wrote:
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> > > File
> > chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js
> > > (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> > >
> >
>
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js:167:
> > > * See http://crbug.com/383930
> > > I'm not sure we should do this.
> > > I'd like to track format change of date. If the changed format would not
> match
> > > with the Files.app UI, we should handle this.
> > > Because the format changes do not happen frequently, can we keep the
> expected
> > > data as they are?
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you meant by the above. If we don't add a comma in the
> > expected result, the test would fail.  (the failure with PS #13 is due to
> > http://crbug.com/384132, btw). 
> > 
> > Or, are you talking about using 'Date' instead of 'string' in TestEntry (as
I
> > suggested in http://crbug.com/383930 )? 
> > 
> > This CL does not do that. This CL just updates the expected result in
*string*
> > to match the output of Files.app UI (which comes from ICU/CLDR). 
> > 
> > As for what to put in TestEntry, please feel free to add your thought to
> > http://crbug.com/383930   
> > 
> > In the meantime, can you approve the change
> > file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js (to update the expected output)? 
> > 
> > Thank you.
> 
> I'm talking about http://crbug.com/383930. Let me move on the bug thread.

For this CL, please remove the TODO comment if you agree with keeping the
expected results as string.
Otherwise, please add 'hirono' to the TODO comment. I'll track the discussion
and do action depending on the conclusion. (change the code, or remove the TODO
comment)

Thank you!

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-13 08:47:11]

On 2014/06/13 06:43:49, hirono wrote:
> On 2014/06/13 06:23:17, hirono wrote:
> > On 2014/06/13 06:14:09, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> > > On 2014/06/13 02:32:22, hirono wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> > > > File
> > > chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js
> > > > (right):
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js:167:
> > > > * See http://crbug.com/383930
> > > > I'm not sure we should do this.
> > > > I'd like to track format change of date. If the changed format would not
> > match
> > > > with the Files.app UI, we should handle this.
> > > > Because the format changes do not happen frequently, can we keep the
> > expected
> > > > data as they are?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what you meant by the above. If we don't add a comma in the
> > > expected result, the test would fail.  (the failure with PS #13 is due to
> > > http://crbug.com/384132, btw). 
> > > 
> > > Or, are you talking about using 'Date' instead of 'string' in TestEntry
(as
> I
> > > suggested in http://crbug.com/383930 )? 
> > > 
> > > This CL does not do that. This CL just updates the expected result in
> *string*
> > > to match the output of Files.app UI (which comes from ICU/CLDR). 
> > > 
> > > As for what to put in TestEntry, please feel free to add your thought to
> > > http://crbug.com/383930   
> > > 
> > > In the meantime, can you approve the change
> > > file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js (to update the expected output)? 
> > > 
> > > Thank you.
> > 
> > I'm talking about http://crbug.com/383930. Let me move on the bug thread.

Thank you for the clarification. 

> For this CL, please remove the TODO comment if you agree with keeping the
> expected results as string.
> Otherwise, please add 'hirono' to the TODO comment. I'll track the discussion
> and do action depending on the conclusion. (change the code, or remove the
TODO
> comment)

Ok. For now, I removed the TODO comment. Pls, take another look. 

Thanks !

[hirono, 2014-06-13 08:49:29]

On 2014/06/13 08:47:11, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> On 2014/06/13 06:43:49, hirono wrote:
> > On 2014/06/13 06:23:17, hirono wrote:
> > > On 2014/06/13 06:14:09, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> > > > On 2014/06/13 02:32:22, hirono wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> > > > > File
> > > >
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js
> > > > > (right):
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/265613002/diff/240001/chrome/test/data/extens...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js:167:
> > > > > * See http://crbug.com/383930
> > > > > I'm not sure we should do this.
> > > > > I'd like to track format change of date. If the changed format would
not
> > > match
> > > > > with the Files.app UI, we should handle this.
> > > > > Because the format changes do not happen frequently, can we keep the
> > > expected
> > > > > data as they are?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure what you meant by the above. If we don't add a comma in the
> > > > expected result, the test would fail.  (the failure with PS #13 is due
to
> > > > http://crbug.com/384132, btw). 
> > > > 
> > > > Or, are you talking about using 'Date' instead of 'string' in TestEntry
> (as
> > I
> > > > suggested in http://crbug.com/383930 )? 
> > > > 
> > > > This CL does not do that. This CL just updates the expected result in
> > *string*
> > > > to match the output of Files.app UI (which comes from ICU/CLDR). 
> > > > 
> > > > As for what to put in TestEntry, please feel free to add your thought to
> > > > http://crbug.com/383930   
> > > > 
> > > > In the meantime, can you approve the change
> > > > file_manager_browsertest/test_util.js (to update the expected output)? 
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you.
> > > 
> > > I'm talking about http://crbug.com/383930. Let me move on the bug thread.
> 
> Thank you for the clarification. 
> 
> > For this CL, please remove the TODO comment if you agree with keeping the
> > expected results as string.
> > Otherwise, please add 'hirono' to the TODO comment. I'll track the
discussion
> > and do action depending on the conclusion. (change the code, or remove the
> TODO
> > comment)
> 
> Ok. For now, I removed the TODO comment. Pls, take another look. 
> 
> Thanks !

Thank you, lgtm!

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-13 17:06:09]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-13 17:07:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-13 20:50:07]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_compile_...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-13 22:27:13]

Change committed as 277111

[Sorin Jianu, 2014-06-14 02:17:05]

This change was reverted by https://codereview.chromium.org/336793004/

I don't understand how this change landed through the CQ but after it landed, it
broke pretty much every tree closer.

An additional thing to consider when relanding it: it also appear to trigger the
perf size bots on Windows and Linux.

Very interesting.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-14 06:41:27]

On 2014/06/14 02:17:05, Sorin Jianu wrote:
> This change was reverted by https://codereview.chromium.org/336793004/
> 
> I don't understand how this change landed through the CQ but after it landed,
it
> broke pretty much every tree closer.
> 
> An additional thing to consider when relanding it: it also appear to trigger
the
> perf size bots on Windows and Linux.
> 
> Very interesting.

Indeed, very strange (and frustrating).  I'll ask Sergey about this offline.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-14 07:50:39]

On 2014/06/14 02:17:05, Sorin Jianu wrote:

> An additional thing to consider when relanding it: it also appear to trigger
the
> perf size bots on Windows and Linux.

Thank you for reminding me. I forgot that a slight size increase is expected.
(I'll alert sheriff about that and make sure that a necessary size expectation
change will be made).

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-19 21:58:15]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-19 21:58:18]

The CQ bit was unchecked by jshin@chromium.org

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-19 22:00:07]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-19 22:04:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/280001

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-19 22:10:21]

The CQ bit was unchecked by jshin@chromium.org

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-19 22:25:00]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-19 22:25:28]

On 2014/06/19 22:10:21, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> The CQ bit was unchecked by
https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=jshin@chromium.org

BUILD.gn for ICU moved. Rebaselined. Adding it to CQ again.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-19 22:27:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/300001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-20 03:52:24]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-20 05:19:33]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-20 05:19:35]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-20 20:13:39]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-20 20:15:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/300001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-20 21:45:02]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-06-20 21:50:47]

Not to myself and sheriffs : 

http://codereview.chromium.org/348913002 has to be applied before running
make_expectations.py to update tools/perf_expectations/perf_expectations.json
after this CL is landed.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-20 23:06:00]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-20 23:06:01]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-07-17 17:31:14]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 17:31:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/300001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 17:38:48]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win8_chromium_rel/bui...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 17:43:37]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 17:43:39]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win8_chromium_rel/bui...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-07-17 17:55:01]

The CQ bit was checked by jshin@chromium.org

[jungshik at Google, 2014-07-17 17:56:34]

Rebased to the ToT (BUILD.gn was updated while I was gone). 

Enrollment*Success (browser_test) was disabled in another CL so we should be
good to go if nothing else changed during my absence (that test was the only
test that failed).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 17:56:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jshin@chromium.org/265613002/320001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 21:33:18]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  android_dbg_triggered_tests on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg_triggered...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 22:01:15]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 22:01:16]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_dbg_triggered_tests on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg_triggered...)

[jungshik at Google, 2014-07-18 18:47:13]

I'm landing this CL manually. AndroidDebug failure was fixed by reverting a new
SSL library CL in another CL and it's turned green in the trybot shown here. 

The only remaining failure (windows rel : unit_tests:
ExtensionMessageBubbleTest.ProxyOverriddenControllerTest ) has failed in other
trybots without this patch. See, for instance, 
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...


Once it's landed, I'll update the size expectation file because the size
increase is expected and approved by laforge.

[jungshik at Google, 2014-07-18 18:48:01]

Committed patchset #17 manually as r284167 (presubmit successful).