MD Settings: Update Protected Content for redesign

MD Settings: Update Protected Content for redesign

 1. Preserves settings.privacy.drm_enabled to toggle unique identifiers.
 2. Adds webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled above to toggle EME.
 3. Hides the exception list if prefs.settings.privacy.drm_enabled is
    disabled.

BUG=687783
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#449744}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/595de1b5cec1ba648843e33d2ee01957b4f5966c

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 00:20:17]

Description was changed from

==========
MD Settings: Update Protected Content for redesign

 1. Preserves settings.privacy.drm_enabled to toggle unique identifiers.
 2. Adds webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled above to toggle EME.
 3. Hides the exception list if prefs.settings.privacy.drm_enabled is
    disabled.

BUG=687783
==========

to

==========
MD Settings: Update Protected Content for redesign

 1. Preserves settings.privacy.drm_enabled to toggle unique identifiers.
 2. Adds webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled above to toggle EME.
 3. Hides the exception list if prefs.settings.privacy.drm_enabled is
    disabled.

BUG=687783
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation
==========

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 00:20:19]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 00:21:13]

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

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 00:22:22]

tommycli@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ stevenjb@chromium.org

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 00:22:23]

stevenjb: PTAL, Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/webui/set...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/settings/md_settings_localized_strings_provider.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/webui/set...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/settings/md_settings_localized_strings_provider.cc:1590:
#endif
Wow the diff looks awful. But the only changes are the above two entries and
adding an #if defined preprocessor exclusion.

git cl upload requested that I use git cl format before uploading.

[stevenjb, 2017-02-10 00:32:31]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
Just FMI, any particular reason to do this in the HTML instead of using i18n()
in the JS? I realize it's minutely more efficient this way, but seems a little
less readable than something like:
[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/webui/set...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/settings/md_settings_localized_strings_provider.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/webui/set...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/settings/md_settings_localized_strings_provider.cc:1590:
#endif
On 2017/02/10 00:22:23, tommycli wrote:
> Wow the diff looks awful. But the only changes are the above two entries and
> adding an #if defined preprocessor exclusion.
> 
> git cl upload requested that I use git cl format before uploading.

Might be worth uploading a formatting only CL, you can RS l-g-t-m it.

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 00:51:37]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
On 2017/02/10 00:32:31, stevenjb wrote:
> Just FMI, any particular reason to do this in the HTML instead of using i18n()
> in the JS? I realize it's minutely more efficient this way, but seems a little
> less readable than something like:
>
[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]
> 

Ask dschuyler for details, but the plan is to eventually eliminate all of the
JavaScript i18n. As I understand it, if we remove all JavaScript i18n, the
difference is not minute.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 01:03:34]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 01:03:35]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_n5x_swarming_rel on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_n5x_...)
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 01:04:33]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 01:05:01]

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

[stevenjb, 2017-02-10 01:12:47]

lgtm (trusting that the md_settings_localized_strings_provider.cc change is
correct, it would be better as a separate formatting CL).

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
On 2017/02/10 00:51:37, tommycli wrote:
> On 2017/02/10 00:32:31, stevenjb wrote:
> > Just FMI, any particular reason to do this in the HTML instead of using
i18n()
> > in the JS? I realize it's minutely more efficient this way, but seems a
little
> > less readable than something like:
> >
>
[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]
> > 
> 
> Ask dschuyler for details, but the plan is to eventually eliminate all of the
> JavaScript i18n. As I understand it, if we remove all JavaScript i18n, the
> difference is not minute.

Hmm, I am unconvinced that is achievable, but if it is a non minute improvement
in general, this is fine.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 02:24:12]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 02:24:12]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 16:58:42]

Hey Steven, thanks! I will send in the formatting change as a separate TBR CL.
No problem :D

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
On 2017/02/10 01:12:47, stevenjb wrote:
> On 2017/02/10 00:51:37, tommycli wrote:
> > On 2017/02/10 00:32:31, stevenjb wrote:
> > > Just FMI, any particular reason to do this in the HTML instead of using
> i18n()
> > > in the JS? I realize it's minutely more efficient this way, but seems a
> little
> > > less readable than something like:
> > >
> >
>
[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]
> > > 
> > 
> > Ask dschuyler for details, but the plan is to eventually eliminate all of
the
> > JavaScript i18n. As I understand it, if we remove all JavaScript i18n, the
> > difference is not minute.
> 
> Hmm, I am unconvinced that is achievable, but if it is a non minute
improvement
> in general, this is fine.

Hey - I should be more specific... if we can remove all the i18n-content
attributes within the HTML, we will be able to skip the step where we parse the
HTML in JavaScript modifying the DOM. That was the part that was non-minute.

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 17:12:39]

Patchset #2 (id:20001) has been deleted

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 17:14:53]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 17:15:22]

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

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 17:16:09]

On 2017/02/10 16:58:42, tommycli wrote:
> Hey Steven, thanks! I will send in the formatting change as a separate TBR CL.
> No problem :D
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
> File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
> chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
> '$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
> On 2017/02/10 01:12:47, stevenjb wrote:
> > On 2017/02/10 00:51:37, tommycli wrote:
> > > On 2017/02/10 00:32:31, stevenjb wrote:
> > > > Just FMI, any particular reason to do this in the HTML instead of using
> > i18n()
> > > > in the JS? I realize it's minutely more efficient this way, but seems a
> > little
> > > > less readable than something like:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ask dschuyler for details, but the plan is to eventually eliminate all of
> the
> > > JavaScript i18n. As I understand it, if we remove all JavaScript i18n, the
> > > difference is not minute.
> > 
> > Hmm, I am unconvinced that is achievable, but if it is a non minute
> improvement
> > in general, this is fine.
> 
> Hey - I should be more specific... if we can remove all the i18n-content
> attributes within the HTML, we will be able to skip the step where we parse
the
> HTML in JavaScript modifying the DOM. That was the part that was non-minute.

Hey Steven, it's not possible to submit a reformat-only CL, since git cl format
only prefers the two-space indent when there is an #if defined statement. In
other words, it only wants to reformat if I make the changes in this CL. As a
substitute, I have uploaded PS2 which is the string-only changes without
reformatting, and then PS3, which is just a reformat of PS2, which is equal to
PS1, the originally reviewed patch. I should have done that in the first place.

As for git cl format's weird behavior, I will submit a question / bug to the
clang-format group. Thanks!

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 17:16:30]

The CQ bit was unchecked by tommycli@chromium.org

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 17:16:31]

The CQ bit was checked by tommycli@chromium.org

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 17:16:31]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
stevenjb@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/#ps60001
(title: "PS2 + reformat = PS3 = PS1")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 17:16:55]

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

[stevenjb, 2017-02-10 17:21:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
On 2017/02/10 16:58:42, tommycli wrote:
> On 2017/02/10 01:12:47, stevenjb wrote:
> > On 2017/02/10 00:51:37, tommycli wrote:
> > > On 2017/02/10 00:32:31, stevenjb wrote:
> > > > Just FMI, any particular reason to do this in the HTML instead of using
> > i18n()
> > > > in the JS? I realize it's minutely more efficient this way, but seems a
> > little
> > > > less readable than something like:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ask dschuyler for details, but the plan is to eventually eliminate all of
> the
> > > JavaScript i18n. As I understand it, if we remove all JavaScript i18n, the
> > > difference is not minute.
> > 
> > Hmm, I am unconvinced that is achievable, but if it is a non minute
> improvement
> > in general, this is fine.
> 
> Hey - I should be more specific... if we can remove all the i18n-content
> attributes within the HTML, we will be able to skip the step where we parse
the
> HTML in JavaScript modifying the DOM. That was the part that was non-minute.

OK, that makes sense. I was actually suggesting:

label=[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]

Then in JS:

getProtectedContentLabel_: function() {
  return this.prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value ?
    this.i18n(siteSettingsProtectedContentEnable) :
    this.i18n(siteSettingsBlocked);
}

Only because I find the HTML is kind of hard to read, but I noticed that the
pattern / function you used already exists below, so I guess this is fine.

[Dan Beam, 2017-02-10 17:22:50]

On 2017/02/10 17:16:09, tommycli wrote:
> On 2017/02/10 16:58:42, tommycli wrote:
> > Hey Steven, thanks! I will send in the formatting change as a separate TBR
CL.
> > No problem :D
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
> > File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html
(right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
> > chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
> > '$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
> > On 2017/02/10 01:12:47, stevenjb wrote:
> > > On 2017/02/10 00:51:37, tommycli wrote:
> > > > On 2017/02/10 00:32:31, stevenjb wrote:
> > > > > Just FMI, any particular reason to do this in the HTML instead of
using
> > > i18n()
> > > > > in the JS? I realize it's minutely more efficient this way, but seems
a
> > > little
> > > > > less readable than something like:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
[[getProtectedContentLabel_(prefs.webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled.value)]]
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ask dschuyler for details, but the plan is to eventually eliminate all
of
> > the
> > > > JavaScript i18n. As I understand it, if we remove all JavaScript i18n,
the
> > > > difference is not minute.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, I am unconvinced that is achievable, but if it is a non minute
> > improvement
> > > in general, this is fine.
> > 
> > Hey - I should be more specific... if we can remove all the i18n-content
> > attributes within the HTML, we will be able to skip the step where we parse
> the
> > HTML in JavaScript modifying the DOM. That was the part that was non-minute.
> 
> Hey Steven, it's not possible to submit a reformat-only CL, since git cl
format
> only prefers the two-space indent when there is an #if defined statement. In
> other words, it only wants to reformat if I make the changes in this CL. As a
> substitute, I have uploaded PS2 which is the string-only changes without
> reformatting, and then PS3, which is just a reformat of PS2, which is equal to
> PS1, the originally reviewed patch. I should have done that in the first
place.
> 
> As for git cl format's weird behavior, I will submit a question / bug to the
> clang-format group. Thanks!

it's already been discussed on chromium-dev@ and filed on upstream clang-format

[Dan Beam, 2017-02-10 17:23:53]

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

[Dan Beam, 2017-02-10 17:23:53]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
this will break on '

[Dan Beam, 2017-02-10 17:24:39]

The CQ bit was unchecked by dbeam@chromium.org

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 18:44:48]

tommycli@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dschuyler@chromium.org

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 18:46:31]

dschuyler/dbeam:

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
On 2017/02/10 17:23:53, Dan Beam wrote:
> this will break on '

+dschuyler

Indeed this does break on '. I thought we escaped that, but we only escape
double-quotes. Does it seem worth it to additionally escape this in
i18n_source_stream? If not, we probably need to abandon all usages of this
pattern in Settings. (There are many in site_settings_page.)

[dschuyler, 2017-02-10 19:07:58]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
On 2017/02/10 18:46:31, tommycli wrote:
> On 2017/02/10 17:23:53, Dan Beam wrote:
> > this will break on '
> 
> +dschuyler
> 
> Indeed this does break on '. I thought we escaped that, but we only escape
> double-quotes. Does it seem worth it to additionally escape this in
> i18n_source_stream? If not, we probably need to abandon all usages of this
> pattern in Settings. (There are many in site_settings_page.)

A CL to fix it is here: https://codereview.chromium.org/2681623002/
And a doc discussing it further is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qWU0tJfLbmE0clsCdLUy7etk3Of8hUb8qG87tYKM6...

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 19:15:17]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 19:15:53]

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

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 19:17:00]

stevenjb: Thanks! I converted to the JS i18n you suggested earlier. PTAL again

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/resource...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/privacy_page/privacy_page.html:428:
'$i18n{siteSettingsBlocked}')]]">
On 2017/02/10 19:07:58, dschuyler wrote:
> On 2017/02/10 18:46:31, tommycli wrote:
> > On 2017/02/10 17:23:53, Dan Beam wrote:
> > > this will break on '
> > 
> > +dschuyler
> > 
> > Indeed this does break on '. I thought we escaped that, but we only escape
> > double-quotes. Does it seem worth it to additionally escape this in
> > i18n_source_stream? If not, we probably need to abandon all usages of this
> > pattern in Settings. (There are many in site_settings_page.)
> 
> A CL to fix it is here: https://codereview.chromium.org/2681623002/
> And a doc discussing it further is here:
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qWU0tJfLbmE0clsCdLUy7etk3Of8hUb8qG87tYKM6...

Hey thanks, that explains things.

In PS4, I've converted the code to use JavaScript i18n as stevenjb recommended
earlier. This should allow us to get unblocked and fix the protected content. We
can convert back to the ternary expression later once i18nStr is landed.

[stevenjb, 2017-02-10 19:37:49]

LGTM
FWIW I do find this more readable.

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 19:39:56]

On 2017/02/10 19:37:49, stevenjb wrote:
> LGTM
> FWIW I do find this more readable.

alrighty thanks!

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 19:40:00]

The CQ bit was unchecked by tommycli@chromium.org

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 19:40:01]

The CQ bit was checked by tommycli@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 19:40:13]

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, 2017-02-10 19:51:18]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 19:51:19]

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

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 20:00:55]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 20:01:54]

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, 2017-02-10 21:36:08]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 21:36:09]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 21:38:00]

The CQ bit was checked by tommycli@chromium.org

[tommycli, 2017-02-10 21:38:00]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
stevenjb@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002/#ps100001
(title: "fix closure issues")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 21:38:50]

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, 2017-02-10 21:43:31]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 100001, "attempt_start_ts": 1486762680086200,
"parent_rev": "70adf8ced0a1e191f0dabdec73b568c26f1ca2d2", "commit_rev":
"595de1b5cec1ba648843e33d2ee01957b4f5966c"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 21:44:07]

Description was changed from

==========
MD Settings: Update Protected Content for redesign

 1. Preserves settings.privacy.drm_enabled to toggle unique identifiers.
 2. Adds webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled above to toggle EME.
 3. Hides the exception list if prefs.settings.privacy.drm_enabled is
    disabled.

BUG=687783
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation
==========

to

==========
MD Settings: Update Protected Content for redesign

 1. Preserves settings.privacy.drm_enabled to toggle unique identifiers.
 2. Adds webkit.webprefs.encrypted_media_enabled above to toggle EME.
 3. Hides the exception list if prefs.settings.privacy.drm_enabled is
    disabled.

BUG=687783
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2688793002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#449744}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/595de1b5cec1ba648843e33d2ee0...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-10 21:44:08]

Committed patchset #5 (id:100001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/595de1b5cec1ba648843e33d2ee0...