Android: cleanup gtest_target_type conditions.

Android: cleanup gtest_target_type conditions.

For a long time (crrev.com/133053) OS==android implies:
gtest_target_type=shared_library
Cleanup the spurious conditions and obsolete TODOs.

BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=271222

[bulach, 2014-05-07 13:31:49]

I think gtest_target_type conditions can all rip?
let me know otherwise. :)

[Torne, 2014-05-07 13:41:35]

Should be fine, I don't think we want to run executable format tests any more.
LGTM.

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2014-05-07 16:17:32]

On 2014/05/07 13:41:35, Torne wrote:
> Should be fine, I don't think we want to run executable format tests any more.
> LGTM.

FYI, sandbox_linux_unittests still needs to not use JNI (not have Dalvik loaded
in its address space) and be a pure linux executable. It looks like your CL is
not breaking that though, according to the try bots.

[bulach, 2014-05-07 16:24:38]

On 2014/05/07 16:17:32, jln wrote:
> On 2014/05/07 13:41:35, Torne wrote:
> > Should be fine, I don't think we want to run executable format tests any
more.
> > LGTM.
> 
> FYI, sandbox_linux_unittests still needs to not use JNI (not have Dalvik
loaded
> in its address space) and be a pure linux executable. It looks like your CL is
> not breaking that though, according to the try bots.

thanks jln!
yes: I'm not at all changing the types of any tests. It'll still be possible to
specify individual test targets as being executable... :)
the only change here is that android for a long time implies that the variable
"gtest_target_type" is shared_library and goes into an apk.

For tests that are purely executable, they shouldn't even use gtest_target_type
at all, and instead should directly specify "executable" as their target.. does
it make sense?

[Yaron, 2014-05-08 01:00:01]

lgtm

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2014-05-08 06:38:35]

On 2014/05/07 16:24:38, bulach wrote:
> For tests that are purely executable, they shouldn't even use
gtest_target_type
> at all, and instead should directly specify "executable" as their target..
does
> it make sense?

Yes, looks good, thanks!

[bulach, 2014-05-08 08:30:51]

+darin: may I have your uber OWNER rs please?
mostly mechanical changes across various gyp(i) files.

[tfarina, 2014-05-15 22:50:22]

Marcus, what if you try asking Ben (ben@) to rubber stamp this (src/OWNERS).

If he is also not available, do you mind splitting this per directory and
sending this down to the relevant OWNERS?

[bulach, 2014-05-16 10:51:08]

+ben as per tfarina suggestion :) need RS on a bunch of android-specific GYP
changes, android folks already happy..

this is semi-mechanical, I suppose it'd be ok to TBR too?

[Ben Goodger (Google), 2014-05-16 20:13:35]

fewer lines of gyp = beng happy

lgtm

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:36:04]

The CQ bit was checked by tfarina@chromium.org

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:36:04]

The CQ bit was unchecked by tfarina@chromium.org

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:36:07]

The CQ bit was unchecked by tfarina@chromium.org

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:36:07]

The CQ bit was checked by tfarina@chromium.org

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:36:07]

The CQ bit was unchecked by tfarina@chromium.org

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:36:07]

The CQ bit was checked by tfarina@chromium.org

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:36:13]

The CQ bit was checked by tfarina@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 20:36:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bulach@chromium.org/278443003/20001

[tfarina, 2014-05-16 20:37:45]

I checked the CQ box (with my broken mouse generating multiple clicks, checking
and unchecking it multiple times :/).

Let's see if the patch still applies :)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-17 16:10:01]

Change committed as 271222

[tfarina, 2014-05-27 06:52:52]

Marcus, looks like Blink and WebRTC can have the same cleanup.

[bulach, 2014-05-27 12:36:20]

On 2014/05/27 06:52:52, tfarina wrote:
> Marcus, looks like Blink and WebRTC can have the same cleanup.

ahn, my git grep wasn't deep enough :)
thanks for pointing it out, I'll follow up on those soon!