Add support for 'allow-orientation-lock' sandboxing directive

Add support for 'allow-orientation-lock' sandboxing directive

Add support for 'allow-orientation-lock' sandboxing directive when parsing
sandboxing directives:
https://w3c.github.io/screen-orientation/#dfn-sandboxed-orientation-lock-browsing-context-flag

Also throw an SecurityError DOMException if screen.lockOrientation() is called
on a Document whose active sandboxing flag set has the sandboxed orientation
lock browsing context flag set, as per the latest Screen Orientation API: 
https://w3c.github.io/screen-orientation/#dfn-apply-an-orientation-lock

R=abarth@chromium.org
BUG=162827
TEST=screen_orientation/lockOrientation-sandboxed-iframe.html

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=173806

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-09 17:42:13]

LGTM, though could you use test-harness.js instead?

[Inactive, 2014-05-09 18:01:47]

On 2014/05/09 17:42:13, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> LGTM, though could you use test-harness.js instead?

Is this official project policy now? I really have no clue about testharness.js
and I have been putting off learning about it until I actually have to :)

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-09 18:42:31]

On 2014/05/09 18:01:47, Chris Dumez wrote:
> On 2014/05/09 17:42:13, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > LGTM, though could you use test-harness.js instead?
> 
> Is this official project policy now? I really have no clue about
testharness.js
> and I have been putting off learning about it until I actually have to :)

Adam told me that ideally, it should now be used. I wrote my orientationchange
event test like that if you want to have an example.

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-09 18:44:47]

On 2014/05/09 18:42:31, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 2014/05/09 18:01:47, Chris Dumez wrote:
> > On 2014/05/09 17:42:13, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > > LGTM, though could you use test-harness.js instead?
> > 
> > Is this official project policy now? I really have no clue about
> testharness.js
> > and I have been putting off learning about it until I actually have to :)
> 
> Adam told me that ideally, it should now be used. I wrote my orientationchange
> event test like that if you want to have an example.

Oh, also, a side effect of using test harness is that we could more easily share
our tests with the W3C - obviously, not the ones using Internals.

[Inactive, 2014-05-09 20:59:23]

On 2014/05/09 18:44:47, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 2014/05/09 18:42:31, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > On 2014/05/09 18:01:47, Chris Dumez wrote:
> > > On 2014/05/09 17:42:13, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > > > LGTM, though could you use test-harness.js instead?
> > > 
> > > Is this official project policy now? I really have no clue about
> > testharness.js
> > > and I have been putting off learning about it until I actually have to :)
> > 
> > Adam told me that ideally, it should now be used. I wrote my
orientationchange
> > event test like that if you want to have an example.
> 
> Oh, also, a side effect of using test harness is that we could more easily
share
> our tests with the W3C - obviously, not the ones using Internals.

I gave it a shot. Please take a look as I don't know testharness.js and the test
is not trivial due to iframes.

[abarth-chromium, 2014-05-10 00:31:59]

LGTM w/o the status=stable

https://codereview.chromium.org/272213002/diff/50001/Source/platform/RuntimeE...
File Source/platform/RuntimeEnabledFeatures.in (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/272213002/diff/50001/Source/platform/RuntimeE...
Source/platform/RuntimeEnabledFeatures.in:105: ScreenOrientation status=stable
Did you mean to include this change in this CL?  Typically we flip these flags
in separate CLs.

[Inactive, 2014-05-10 00:34:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/272213002/diff/50001/Source/platform/RuntimeE...
File Source/platform/RuntimeEnabledFeatures.in (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/272213002/diff/50001/Source/platform/RuntimeE...
Source/platform/RuntimeEnabledFeatures.in:105: ScreenOrientation status=stable
On 2014/05/10 00:31:59, abarth wrote:
> Did you mean to include this change in this CL?  Typically we flip these flags
> in separate CLs.

God no, sorry about that. I did some testing locally and forgot to revert this
change.

[Inactive, 2014-05-10 00:36:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/272213002/diff/50001/Source/platform/RuntimeE...
File Source/platform/RuntimeEnabledFeatures.in (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/272213002/diff/50001/Source/platform/RuntimeE...
Source/platform/RuntimeEnabledFeatures.in:105: ScreenOrientation status=stable
On 2014/05/10 00:31:59, abarth wrote:
> Did you mean to include this change in this CL?  Typically we flip these flags
> in separate CLs.

I reverted this part, good that you noticed :)

[Inactive, 2014-05-10 00:42:12]

The CQ bit was checked by ch.dumez@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-10 00:43:54]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ch.dumez@samsung.com/272213002/70001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-10 01:54:34]

Change committed as 173806