Use WebScreenInfo members to provide screen orientation information for layout test support.

Use WebScreenInfo members to provide screen orientation information for layout test support.

BUG=162827
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=271017

[Inactive, 2014-05-12 19:52:52]

This change is needed before I can update the Blink-side to rely on
WebScreenInfo::orientationType (instead of Platform.h API):
https://codereview.chromium.org/277413002/

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014-05-14 09:07:34]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/10001/content/public/test/layo...
File content/public/test/layouttest_support.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/10001/content/public/test/layo...
content/public/test/layouttest_support.h:64: const
blink::WebScreenOrientationType& orientation);
please clang-format

[ostap, 2014-05-14 13:29:00]

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/10001/content/public/test/layo...
File content/public/test/layouttest_support.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/10001/content/public/test/layo...
content/public/test/layouttest_support.h:64: const
blink::WebScreenOrientationType& orientation);
On 2014/05/14 09:07:35, jochen wrote:
> please clang-format

Done.

[ostap, 2014-05-14 13:29:07]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 13:29:22]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 15:14:37]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  android_aosp on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_aosp/builds/7...)
  android_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg/builds/18...)
  ios_dbg_simulator on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/ios_dbg_simulator/bui...)
  ios_rel_device on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/ios_rel_device/builds...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 15:17:10]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 15:17:11]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-14 15:33:04]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 15:33:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 16:34:57]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  android_dbg_triggered_tests on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg_triggered...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 16:47:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 16:47:03]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-14 18:44:28]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 18:44:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 19:07:06]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 19:22:41]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 19:22:41]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-14 20:48:55]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 20:50:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 21:10:24]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 21:25:13]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-14 21:25:13]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-15 04:14:23]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:15:47]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:20:42]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:24:51]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:24:52]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-15 04:47:51]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:49:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:54:11]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:57:39]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 04:57:40]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-15 05:00:03]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:01:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:06:34]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:10:22]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:10:23]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-15 05:24:32]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:25:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:30:55]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:34:29]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 05:34:29]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-15 06:42:48]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 06:43:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 06:50:23]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 06:53:51]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 06:53:52]

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

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-15 07:06:58]

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/30001/content/renderer/render_...
File content/renderer/render_view_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/30001/content/renderer/render_...
content/renderer/render_view_impl.cc:4017: params.screen_info.orientationAngle =
90;
Please, do not do that kind of assumptions. It seems easier to simply pass a
pair of { type, angle }.

[Inactive, 2014-05-15 13:01:46]

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/30001/content/renderer/render_...
File content/renderer/render_view_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/284583003/diff/30001/content/renderer/render_...
content/renderer/render_view_impl.cc:4017: params.screen_info.orientationAngle =
90;
On 2014/05/15 07:06:59, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Please, do not do that kind of assumptions. It seems easier to simply pass a
> pair of { type, angle }.

I agree we generally shouldn't make this kind of assumption. However, this
method is used *only* for layout testing. Why is this a problem for testing? The
layout tests already assume that the default orientation is "portrait-primary"
for e.g.

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-15 13:34:27]

On 2014/05/15 13:01:46, Chris Dumez wrote:
> I agree we generally shouldn't make this kind of assumption. However, this
> method is used *only* for layout testing. Why is this a problem for testing?
The
> layout tests already assume that the default orientation is "portrait-primary"
> for e.g.

I understand that we can make some assumptions when testing but in that case,
the method will prevent us from testing some things. For example, if Blink
receives a WebScreenInfo with { 'undefined', 90 }, it should try to guess the
actual orientation type. With this test, you are making the type mandatory and
guess the angle based on it so you couldn't actually test that code path.

[Inactive, 2014-05-15 13:37:44]

On 2014/05/15 13:34:27, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 2014/05/15 13:01:46, Chris Dumez wrote:
> > I agree we generally shouldn't make this kind of assumption. However, this
> > method is used *only* for layout testing. Why is this a problem for testing?
> The
> > layout tests already assume that the default orientation is
"portrait-primary"
> > for e.g.
> 
> I understand that we can make some assumptions when testing but in that case,
> the method will prevent us from testing some things. For example, if Blink
> receives a WebScreenInfo with { 'undefined', 90 }, it should try to guess the
> actual orientation type. With this test, you are making the type mandatory and
> guess the angle based on it so you couldn't actually test that code path.

Actually, if you look at my Blink-side patch, you will see that I explicitly
disable orientationType detection when running layout tests. We don't want the
layout tests to have different results depending on the hardware they run on
(e.g. screen dimensions).

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-15 13:39:50]

On 2014/05/15 13:37:44, Chris Dumez wrote:
> On 2014/05/15 13:34:27, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > On 2014/05/15 13:01:46, Chris Dumez wrote:
> > > I agree we generally shouldn't make this kind of assumption. However, this
> > > method is used *only* for layout testing. Why is this a problem for
testing?
> > The
> > > layout tests already assume that the default orientation is
> "portrait-primary"
> > > for e.g.
> > 
> > I understand that we can make some assumptions when testing but in that
case,
> > the method will prevent us from testing some things. For example, if Blink
> > receives a WebScreenInfo with { 'undefined', 90 }, it should try to guess
the
> > actual orientation type. With this test, you are making the type mandatory
and
> > guess the angle based on it so you couldn't actually test that code path.
> 
> Actually, if you look at my Blink-side patch, you will see that I explicitly
> disable orientationType detection when running layout tests. We don't want the
> layout tests to have different results depending on the hardware they run on
> (e.g. screen dimensions).

Couldn't we simulate a screen dimension? It sounds unfortunate to not test that
part. Unless we use unit tests for it?

[Inactive, 2014-05-15 13:49:03]

On 2014/05/15 13:34:27, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 2014/05/15 13:01:46, Chris Dumez wrote:
> > I agree we generally shouldn't make this kind of assumption. However, this
> > method is used *only* for layout testing. Why is this a problem for testing?
> The
> > layout tests already assume that the default orientation is
"portrait-primary"
> > for e.g.
> 
> I understand that we can make some assumptions when testing but in that case,
> the method will prevent us from testing some things. For example, if Blink
> receives a WebScreenInfo with { 'undefined', 90 }, it should try to guess the
> actual orientation type. With this test, you are making the type mandatory and
> guess the angle based on it so you couldn't actually test that code path.

Now that I re-read your comment, I realize I don't understand it. This method is
only called when the layout test is explicitly calling
setMockScreenOrientationForTesting("something"). Therefore, we want to set
orientationType to the value that is given. So orientationType will not be
undefined in this function. The only reason ostap had to set the
orientationAngle to match the orientationType is because the Blink side was not
notified of the orientation change otherwise.

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-15 15:43:19]

On 2014/05/15 13:49:03, Chris Dumez wrote:
> Now that I re-read your comment, I realize I don't understand it. This method
is
> only called when the layout test is explicitly calling
> setMockScreenOrientationForTesting("something"). Therefore, we want to set
> orientationType to the value that is given. So orientationType will not be
> undefined in this function. The only reason ostap had to set the
> orientationAngle to match the orientationType is because the Blink side was
not
> notified of the orientation change otherwise.

testRunner.setMockScreenOrientation() is used to pretend that a screen
orientation change happened, right? Why can't we specify the new { type, angle }
tuple instead of just the type? I understand that we currently only get the type
but it seems that there is a case for adding the angle here. Or am I missing
something?

[Inactive, 2014-05-15 15:46:30]

On 2014/05/15 15:43:19, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 2014/05/15 13:49:03, Chris Dumez wrote:
> > Now that I re-read your comment, I realize I don't understand it. This
method
> is
> > only called when the layout test is explicitly calling
> > setMockScreenOrientationForTesting("something"). Therefore, we want to set
> > orientationType to the value that is given. So orientationType will not be
> > undefined in this function. The only reason ostap had to set the
> > orientationAngle to match the orientationType is because the Blink side was
> not
> > notified of the orientation change otherwise.
> 
> testRunner.setMockScreenOrientation() is used to pretend that a screen
> orientation change happened, right? Why can't we specify the new { type, angle
}
> tuple instead of just the type? I understand that we currently only get the
type
> but it seems that there is a case for adding the angle here. Or am I missing
> something?

Oh, I did not get that you were proposing to extend setMockScreenOrientation().
Why not but I don't think this is high priority considering we currently don't
expose the angle, only the type (this part of the spec is not implemented and
apparently still unstable). I think this could be added later on. I don't think
we should hold this CL because of this, it currently does what we need and it
does not prevent later improvements. Would you agree?

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2014-05-15 15:50:08]

On 2014/05/15 15:46:30, Chris Dumez wrote:
> Oh, I did not get that you were proposing to extend
setMockScreenOrientation().
> Why not but I don't think this is high priority considering we currently don't
> expose the angle, only the type (this part of the spec is not implemented and
> apparently still unstable). I think this could be added later on. I don't
think
> we should hold this CL because of this, it currently does what we need and it
> does not prevent later improvements. Would you agree?

Fine by me. As long as we agree on the solution, I have no problem to have this
landed to unblock you.

osap@, could you add a FIXME/TODO comment explaining that the type/angle
relationship is temporary. LGTM with that.

[ostap, 2014-05-15 16:38:02]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 16:41:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/50001

[ostap, 2014-05-15 17:28:01]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 17:33:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/70001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 20:33:21]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
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, 2014-05-15 21:54:26]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 21:54:27]

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

[ostap, 2014-05-15 22:28:33]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 22:29:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/70001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 23:38:32]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 23:38:33]

Failed to apply patch for @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h:
While running svn add @master --force --config-dir
/b/infra_internal/commit_queue/subversion_config --non-interactive;
  svn: '@master' is just a peg revision. Maybe try '@master@' instead?

Patch:       @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
Index: content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
diff --git @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
index
e2fb2e2ad32634c73ea63b96ab2921607d3c3dcd..ce4a66351425101ca13707c357dbb10d858cd103
100644
--- a/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
+++ b/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ void SetMockDeviceOrientationData(const
blink::WebDeviceOrientationData& data);
 
 // Sets WebScreenOrientationType that should be used as a mock orientation.
 void SetMockScreenOrientation(
+    RenderView* render_view,
     const blink::WebScreenOrientationType& orientation);
 
 // Resets the mock screen orientation data.

[ostap, 2014-05-15 23:52:43]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-15 23:54:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/90001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 03:12:53]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 03:12:54]

Failed to apply patch for @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h:
While running svn add @master --force --config-dir
/b/infra_internal/commit_queue/subversion_config --non-interactive;
  svn: '@master' is just a peg revision. Maybe try '@master@' instead?

Patch:       @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
Index: content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
diff --git @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
index
e2fb2e2ad32634c73ea63b96ab2921607d3c3dcd..ce4a66351425101ca13707c357dbb10d858cd103
100644
--- a/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
+++ b/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ void SetMockDeviceOrientationData(const
blink::WebDeviceOrientationData& data);
 
 // Sets WebScreenOrientationType that should be used as a mock orientation.
 void SetMockScreenOrientation(
+    RenderView* render_view,
     const blink::WebScreenOrientationType& orientation);
 
 // Resets the mock screen orientation data.

[ostap, 2014-05-16 04:07:12]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 04:07:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/90001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 04:08:46]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 04:08:47]

Failed to apply patch for @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h:
While running svn add @master --force --config-dir
/b/infra_internal/commit_queue/subversion_config --non-interactive;
  svn: '@master' is just a peg revision. Maybe try '@master@' instead?

Patch:       @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
Index: content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
diff --git @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
index
e2fb2e2ad32634c73ea63b96ab2921607d3c3dcd..ce4a66351425101ca13707c357dbb10d858cd103
100644
--- a/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
+++ b/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ void SetMockDeviceOrientationData(const
blink::WebDeviceOrientationData& data);
 
 // Sets WebScreenOrientationType that should be used as a mock orientation.
 void SetMockScreenOrientation(
+    RenderView* render_view,
     const blink::WebScreenOrientationType& orientation);
 
 // Resets the mock screen orientation data.

[ostap, 2014-05-16 07:04:59]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 07:05:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/90001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 07:55:51]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 07:55:53]

Failed to apply patch for @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h:
While running svn add @master --force --config-dir
/b/infra_internal/commit_queue/subversion_config --non-interactive;
  svn: '@master' is just a peg revision. Maybe try '@master@' instead?

Patch:       @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
Index: content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
diff --git @master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
index
e2fb2e2ad32634c73ea63b96ab2921607d3c3dcd..ce4a66351425101ca13707c357dbb10d858cd103
100644
--- a/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
+++ b/@master/content/public/test/layouttest_support.h
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ void SetMockDeviceOrientationData(const
blink::WebDeviceOrientationData& data);
 
 // Sets WebScreenOrientationType that should be used as a mock orientation.
 void SetMockScreenOrientation(
+    RenderView* render_view,
     const blink::WebScreenOrientationType& orientation);
 
 // Resets the mock screen orientation data.

[ostap, 2014-05-16 15:01:49]

The CQ bit was checked by sl.ostapenko@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 15:02:15]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sl.ostapenko@samsung.com/284583003/90001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-16 15:03:29]

Change committed as 271017