Add Accessibility Object Model to content features, and add a browser test.

Add Accessibility Object Model to content features, and add a browser test.

More tests at the content layer will follow, this just sets up the
infrastructure for future tests.

BUG=680345
TEST=Run Chrome with --enable-features=AccessibilityObjectModel, print document.body.accessibleNode in Inspector

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#461978}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/43c5f09a24e0f27ffa1009917405123e2844d747

[dmazzoni, 2017-03-30 18:12:52]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-30 18:13:34]

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, 2017-03-30 19:41:59]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-30 19:42:00]

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

[dmazzoni, 2017-03-30 19:47:27]

dmazzoni@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ aboxhall@chromium.org, esprehn@chromium.org

[aboxhall, 2017-04-04 04:38:12]

lgtm

[esprehn, 2017-04-04 05:44:10]

lgtm, but I don't have OWNERS in content/browser.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/20001/content/test/data/acces...
File content/test/data/accessibility/aom/aom-checked.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/20001/content/test/data/acces...
content/test/data/accessibility/aom/aom-checked.html:1: <!--
doctype? We usually prefer standards mode unless the test actually wants to
check quirks on purpose

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 19:01:33]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/20001/content/test/data/acces...
File content/test/data/accessibility/aom/aom-checked.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/20001/content/test/data/acces...
content/test/data/accessibility/aom/aom-checked.html:1: <!--
On 2017/04/04 05:44:10, esprehn wrote:
> doctype? We usually prefer standards mode unless the test actually wants to
> check quirks on purpose

Done.

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 19:01:54]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-04 19:03:36]

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

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 19:04:08]

dmazzoni@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jam@chromium.org

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 19:04:08]

+jam for content/public/common/content_features*

[esprehn, 2017-04-04 19:06:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
File content/child/runtime_features.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
content/child/runtime_features.cc:321:
base::FeatureList::IsEnabled(features::kAccessibilityObjectModel));
Why features:: instead of switches:: This is different from all the other things
here like switches::kRootLayerScrolls

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 19:28:16]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
File content/child/runtime_features.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
content/child/runtime_features.cc:321:
base::FeatureList::IsEnabled(features::kAccessibilityObjectModel));
On 2017/04/04 19:06:20, esprehn wrote:
> Why features:: instead of switches:: This is different from all the other
things
> here like switches::kRootLayerScrolls

I think features are more flexible, right? We get things
like field trials / experiments, and we don't need another
top-level command-line switch if we don't want one (you
can enable the feature with --enable-features=).

[jam, 2017-04-04 19:57:35]

lgtm

[esprehn, 2017-04-04 19:59:44]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
File content/child/runtime_features.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
content/child/runtime_features.cc:321:
base::FeatureList::IsEnabled(features::kAccessibilityObjectModel));
On 2017/04/04 at 19:28:16, dmazzoni wrote:
> On 2017/04/04 19:06:20, esprehn wrote:
> > Why features:: instead of switches:: This is different from all the other
things
> > here like switches::kRootLayerScrolls
> 
> I think features are more flexible, right? We get things
> like field trials / experiments, and we don't need another
> top-level command-line switch if we don't want one (you
> can enable the feature with --enable-features=).

Ah okay that makes sense, is there a doc somewhere that explains this? I wonder
if some of the existing switches should be converted.

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 20:13:44]

On 2017/04/04 19:59:44, esprehn wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
> File content/child/runtime_features.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/diff/40001/content/child/runtime_f...
> content/child/runtime_features.cc:321:
> base::FeatureList::IsEnabled(features::kAccessibilityObjectModel));
> On 2017/04/04 at 19:28:16, dmazzoni wrote:
> > On 2017/04/04 19:06:20, esprehn wrote:
> > > Why features:: instead of switches:: This is different from all the other
> things
> > > here like switches::kRootLayerScrolls
> > 
> > I think features are more flexible, right? We get things
> > like field trials / experiments, and we don't need another
> > top-level command-line switch if we don't want one (you
> > can enable the feature with --enable-features=).
> 
> Ah okay that makes sense, is there a doc somewhere that explains this? I
wonder
> if some of the existing switches should be converted.

This might be a good starting point:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n9tVb0KI2GmHwnvtwCbZjyXgT4-aBDBrUEfhzsV-T...

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 20:41:18]

The CQ bit was unchecked by dmazzoni@chromium.org

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 20:41:26]

The CQ bit was checked by dmazzoni@chromium.org

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 20:41:27]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
esprehn@chromium.org, aboxhall@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/#ps40001
(title: "doctype")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-04 20:42:13]

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, 2017-04-04 21:27:11]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-04 21:27:12]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_rel_...)

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-04 21:47:41]

The CQ bit was checked by dmazzoni@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-04 21:48:19]

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, 2017-04-04 23:08:01]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-04 23:08:02]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_rel_...)

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-05 03:14:25]

The CQ bit was checked by dmazzoni@chromium.org

[dmazzoni, 2017-04-05 03:14:26]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
esprehn@chromium.org, jam@chromium.org, aboxhall@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003/#ps60001
(title: "Update webexposed")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-05 03:14:52]

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, 2017-04-05 04:41:42]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 60001, "attempt_start_ts": 1491362065692570,
"parent_rev": "c2d9697f1cdaf2f7779b2dff3cd8b432896f3152", "commit_rev":
"43c5f09a24e0f27ffa1009917405123e2844d747"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-05 04:42:28]

Description was changed from

==========
Add Accessibility Object Model to content features, and add a browser test.

More tests at the content layer will follow, this just sets up the
infrastructure for future tests.

BUG=680345
TEST=Run Chrome with --enable-features=AccessibilityObjectModel, print
document.body.accessibleNode in Inspector
==========

to

==========
Add Accessibility Object Model to content features, and add a browser test.

More tests at the content layer will follow, this just sets up the
infrastructure for future tests.

BUG=680345
TEST=Run Chrome with --enable-features=AccessibilityObjectModel, print
document.body.accessibleNode in Inspector

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2787843003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#461978}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/43c5f09a24e0f27ffa1009917405...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-05 04:42:29]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/43c5f09a24e0f27ffa1009917405...