cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings. There are two locations, adding supervised user and OOBE EULA screen.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#469826}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/6dfb54fcb774508b6679b8d83f0d935232b3a450

[sammiequon, 2017-05-01 20:48:33]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-01 20:49:27]

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, 2017-05-01 22:01:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-01 22:01:17]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 00:56:16]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 00:56:21]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-02 00:56:55]

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, 2017-05-02 01:33:44]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-02 01:33:45]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 16:11:13]

Description was changed from

==========
Trybots.

BUG=
==========

to

==========
cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want
to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to
M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
==========

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 16:11:13]

sammiequon@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ achuith@chromium.org, apronin@chromium.org

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 16:19:53]

Description was changed from

==========
cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want
to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to
M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
==========

to

==========
cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want
to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to
M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings. There are
two locations, adding supervised user and OOBE EULA screen.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
==========

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 16:20:28]

achuithb@, apronin@ - Please take a look. Thanks!

[apronin, 2017-05-02 16:43:39]

The file-checking logic is correct, but I have a comment about proper function
naming, and some resulting strings seem to require further refining.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3528: Your computer contains a secure module
security device, which is used to implement many critical security features in
Chrome OS.
just 'secure module' (drop 'security device')?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3543: Secure module chip is disabled or absent.
just 'Secure module' (drop 'chip')?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
File chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc:23: constexpr char kNoTPMIndicatorFile1[]
=
I'd go with 'NoTPMIndicator' -> 'Cr50UsedIndicator'. Or, ->
'TPMNotUsedIndicator'

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc:71: bool
TPMTokenInfoGetter::DoesTPMExist() {
Does what is supposed to do for the purposes of the patch. But I'd rename and
revert the logic just to minimize potential confusion in the future. In theory,
several chips, including a TPM and an H1 with Cr50 can exist on the same system.
It counts not what exists, but what is used. So, I'd do something like:

bool TPMTokenInfoGetter::IsCr50Used() {
   return base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile1)) ||
          base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile2));
}

Or, at least switch from 'DoesExist' to 'IsUsed', though that may confuse future
readers: are we talking about a security module (which, even in cr50 case, in
everyday life may be referred to as tpm for brevity) not being used and going
with software-based approach, or are we talking about using h1+cr50 instead of a
tpm:

bool TPMTokenInfoGetter::IsTPMUsed() {
   return !base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile1)) &&
          !base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile2));
}

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 17:23:58]

Patchset #2 (id:40001) has been deleted

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 17:27:23]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3528: Your computer contains a secure module
security device, which is used to implement many critical security features in
Chrome OS.
On 2017/05/02 16:43:38, apronin wrote:
> just 'secure module' (drop 'security device')?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3543: Secure module chip is disabled or absent.
On 2017/05/02 16:43:38, apronin wrote:
> just 'Secure module' (drop 'chip')?

Done.
Q: Would this affect our plan to combine the two TPM & secure module messages
into one message and use a place holder for M-60? Or will we have to keep them
separate because of this?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
File chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc:23: constexpr char kNoTPMIndicatorFile1[]
=
On 2017/05/02 16:43:38, apronin wrote:
> I'd go with 'NoTPMIndicator' -> 'Cr50UsedIndicator'. Or, ->
> 'TPMNotUsedIndicator'

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc:71: bool
TPMTokenInfoGetter::DoesTPMExist() {
On 2017/05/02 16:43:38, apronin wrote:
> Does what is supposed to do for the purposes of the patch. But I'd rename and
> revert the logic just to minimize potential confusion in the future. In
theory,
> several chips, including a TPM and an H1 with Cr50 can exist on the same
system.
> It counts not what exists, but what is used. So, I'd do something like:
> 
> bool TPMTokenInfoGetter::IsCr50Used() {
>    return base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile1)) ||
>           base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile2));
> }
> 
> Or, at least switch from 'DoesExist' to 'IsUsed', though that may confuse
future
> readers: are we talking about a security module (which, even in cr50 case, in
> everyday life may be referred to as tpm for brevity) not being used and going
> with software-based approach, or are we talking about using h1+cr50 instead of
a
> tpm:
> 
> bool TPMTokenInfoGetter::IsTPMUsed() {
>    return !base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile1)) &&
>           !base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile2));
> }

Done.

[apronin1, 2017-05-02 18:18:37]

apronin@google.com changed reviewers:
+ apronin@google.com

[apronin1, 2017-05-02 18:18:38]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3543: Secure module chip is disabled or absent.

> Q: Would this affect our plan to combine the two TPM & secure module messages
> into one message and use a place holder for M-60? Or will we have to keep them
> separate because of this?

I'd say in these places we can drop 'chip' and 'security device' for the TPM
case as well if we want placeholders.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:2044: <message
name="IDS_CREATE_SUPERVISED_USER_SECURE_MODULE_ERROR" desc="Supervised user
dialog, error page, secure module error during creation, text">
btw, this one is actually identical to the tpm text since it only mentions tpm
in the desc (and there are other places, where tpm is mentioned in desc only,
which we didn't fix, so I assumed that's not a requirement).

[sammiequon, 2017-05-02 18:27:45]

Thanks!

Achuith, could you take a look? Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/20001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3543: Secure module chip is disabled or absent.
On 2017/05/02 18:18:38, apronin1 wrote:
> 
> > Q: Would this affect our plan to combine the two TPM & secure module
messages
> > into one message and use a place holder for M-60? Or will we have to keep
them
> > separate because of this?
> 
> I'd say in these places we can drop 'chip' and 'security device' for the TPM
> case as well if we want placeholders. 

sgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:2044: <message
name="IDS_CREATE_SUPERVISED_USER_SECURE_MODULE_ERROR" desc="Supervised user
dialog, error page, secure module error during creation, text">
On 2017/05/02 18:18:38, apronin1 wrote:
> btw, this one is actually identical to the tpm text since it only mentions tpm
> in the desc (and there are other places, where tpm is mentioned in desc only,
> which we didn't fix, so I assumed that's not a requirement).

yeah, I noticed this as well, but I thought it would be less confusing to just
move them all

[sammiequon, 2017-05-03 00:03:50]

sammiequon@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ xiyuan@chromium.org
- achuith@chromium.org

[sammiequon, 2017-05-03 00:04:47]

-achuithb@, +xiyuan@

Achuith is OOO. Xiyuan, could you take a look? Thanks!

[xiyuan, 2017-05-03 04:06:50]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3527: <message
name="IDS_EULA_SECURE_MODULE_DESCRIPTION" desc="Dialog box text">
"desc" are the only context the translators will get. This is too brielf. You
will very likely get a buganizer bug for clarification.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
File chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc:73:
base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile2));
base::PathExists touches file system and should not be called from UI thread.
Also we might want to cache the info to avoid hitting FS everytime.

[sammiequon, 2017-05-03 22:02:12]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-03 22:03:41]

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, 2017-05-03 22:47:38]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-03 22:47:39]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[sammiequon, 2017-05-04 15:57:59]

Patchset #3 (id:80001) has been deleted

[sammiequon, 2017-05-04 16:04:47]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
File chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chrome/app/chromeos_str...
chrome/app/chromeos_strings.grdp:3527: <message
name="IDS_EULA_SECURE_MODULE_DESCRIPTION" desc="Dialog box text">
On 2017/05/03 04:06:49, xiyuan (OOO May 3) wrote:
> "desc" are the only context the translators will get. This is too brielf. You
> will very likely get a buganizer bug for clarification.

Oops, I didn't notice, I just copied from the TPM ones :-P. Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
File chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/60001/chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_...
chromeos/tpm/tpm_token_info_getter.cc:73:
base::PathExists(base::FilePath(kCr50UsedIndicatorFile2));
On 2017/05/03 04:06:49, xiyuan (OOO May 3) wrote:
> base::PathExists touches file system and should not be called from UI thread.
> Also we might want to cache the info to avoid hitting FS everytime.

Done. Though I am concerned with not doing this properly.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/ui/webu...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/eula_screen_handler.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/ui/webu...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/eula_screen_handler.cc:250:
GetOobeUI()->UpdateLocalizedStringsIfNeeded();
Is there a better approach than updating everything again?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/components/login/BUILD.gn
File components/login/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/components/login/BUILD...
components/login/BUILD.gn:14: "secure_module_util.h",
What is the best folder too put these files?

[xiyuan, 2017-05-04 18:26:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/chromeo...
File chrome/browser/chromeos/login/supervised/supervised_user_creation_screen.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/chromeo...
chrome/browser/chromeos/login/supervised/supervised_user_creation_screen.cc:415:
::login::SecureModuleUsed::UNQUERIED) {
Can we hide this inside the QuerySecureModuleUsed? That is, make it an async
query API.

e.g.
  Using GetSecureModuleUsedCallback =
      base::OnceCallback<void (SecureModuleUsed secure_module)>;
  void GetSecureModuleUsed(GetSecureModuleUsedCallback callback) {
    // If we know the result, base::ResetAndReturn(&callback).Run(known_module);
    // Otherwise, post task to a blocking pool and get reply.
    // However, BrowserThread::GetBlockingPool is deprecated.
    // The new way seems to be using 
    base::PostTaskWithTraitsAndReplyWithResult(
        FROM_HERE,
        {base::MayBlock(), base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND,
         base::TaskShutdownBehavior::CONTINUE_ON_SHUTDOWN},
        base::BindOnce(&GetSecureModuleInfoFromFilesAndCacheIt...),
        std::move(callback));
  }

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/chromeo...
chrome/browser/chromeos/login/supervised/supervised_user_creation_screen.cc:417:
content::BrowserThread::IO, FROM_HERE,
IO thread is actually the IPC thread. We should use blocking pool for file
access.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/ui/webu...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/eula_screen_handler.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/ui/webu...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/eula_screen_handler.cc:250:
GetOobeUI()->UpdateLocalizedStringsIfNeeded();
On 2017/05/04 16:04:47, sammiequon wrote:
> Is there a better approach than updating everything again?

UpdateLocalizedStringsIfNeeded() only reloads when md mode is changed. So it is
probably a no-op here.  Also it might cause UI to flicker. How about adding an
explicit JS call something similar to the current reloadContent impl but on JS
side, only do
      loadTimeData.overrideValues(data);
      i18nTemplate.process(document, loadTimeData);

https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/chrome/browser/resources/chromeos/login/...

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/components/login/BUILD.gn
File components/login/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/components/login/BUILD...
components/login/BUILD.gn:14: "secure_module_util.h",
On 2017/05/04 16:04:47, sammiequon wrote:
> What is the best folder too put these files?

I am fine with putting it here.

[sammiequon, 2017-05-04 22:27:28]

Description was changed from

==========
cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want
to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to
M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings. There are
two locations, adding supervised user and OOBE EULA screen.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
==========

to

==========
cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want
to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to
M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings. There are
two locations, adding supervised user and OOBE EULA screen.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation
==========

[sammiequon, 2017-05-04 22:30:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/chromeo...
File chrome/browser/chromeos/login/supervised/supervised_user_creation_screen.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/chromeo...
chrome/browser/chromeos/login/supervised/supervised_user_creation_screen.cc:415:
::login::SecureModuleUsed::UNQUERIED) {
On 2017/05/04 18:26:35, xiyuan wrote:
> Can we hide this inside the QuerySecureModuleUsed? That is, make it an async
> query API.
> 
> e.g.
>   Using GetSecureModuleUsedCallback =
>       base::OnceCallback<void (SecureModuleUsed secure_module)>;
>   void GetSecureModuleUsed(GetSecureModuleUsedCallback callback) {
>     // If we know the result,
base::ResetAndReturn(&callback).Run(known_module);
>     // Otherwise, post task to a blocking pool and get reply.
>     // However, BrowserThread::GetBlockingPool is deprecated.
>     // The new way seems to be using 
>     base::PostTaskWithTraitsAndReplyWithResult(
>         FROM_HERE,
>         {base::MayBlock(), base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND,
>          base::TaskShutdownBehavior::CONTINUE_ON_SHUTDOWN},
>         base::BindOnce(&GetSecureModuleInfoFromFilesAndCacheIt...),
>         std::move(callback));
>   }

Thanks, yeah I wanted to move the async in there but had some DEPS troubles with
browser_thread.h and pretty sure I did something wrong anyways so wanted your
advices :-).

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/chromeo...
chrome/browser/chromeos/login/supervised/supervised_user_creation_screen.cc:417:
content::BrowserThread::IO, FROM_HERE,
On 2017/05/04 18:26:35, xiyuan wrote:
> IO thread is actually the IPC thread. We should use blocking pool for file
> access.

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/ui/webu...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/eula_screen_handler.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/diff/100001/chrome/browser/ui/webu...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/eula_screen_handler.cc:250:
GetOobeUI()->UpdateLocalizedStringsIfNeeded();
On 2017/05/04 18:26:35, xiyuan wrote:
> On 2017/05/04 16:04:47, sammiequon wrote:
> > Is there a better approach than updating everything again?
> 
> UpdateLocalizedStringsIfNeeded() only reloads when md mode is changed. So it
is
> probably a no-op here.  Also it might cause UI to flicker. How about adding an
> explicit JS call something similar to the current reloadContent impl but on JS
> side, only do
>       loadTimeData.overrideValues(data);
>       i18nTemplate.process(document, loadTimeData);
> 
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/chrome/browser/resources/chromeos/login/...

Attempted.

[xiyuan, 2017-05-04 22:59:35]

lgtm

Thanks.

[sammiequon, 2017-05-04 23:13:54]

On 2017/05/04 22:59:35, xiyuan wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Thanks.

Thanks!

[sammiequon, 2017-05-04 23:14:58]

The CQ bit was checked by sammiequon@chromium.org

[sammiequon, 2017-05-04 23:14:59]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from apronin@google.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/#ps120001
(title: "Fixed patch set 4 errors.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-04 23:15:46]

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, 2017-05-04 23:57:26]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-04 23:57:28]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios-simulator on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator/bui...)

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 15:30:48]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 15:31:25]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

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

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 15:33:33]

The CQ bit was unchecked by sammiequon@chromium.org

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 15:33:36]

Patchset #5 (id:140001) has been deleted

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 15:48:59]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 15:49:47]

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, 2017-05-05 16:28:10]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 16:28:11]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 17:05:12]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 17:05:55]

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, 2017-05-05 17:47:29]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 17:47:30]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 17:52:19]

The CQ bit was unchecked by sammiequon@chromium.org

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 17:52:25]

The CQ bit was checked by sammiequon@chromium.org

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 17:52:26]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from apronin@google.com,
xiyuan@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/#ps180001
(title: "Removed unneeded includes.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 17:53:16]

CQ is trying da patch.

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

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 18:08:50]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 18:09:18]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

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

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 18:39:41]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 18:40:27]

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, 2017-05-05 21:40:00]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 21:40:01]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_android_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/linux_androi...)

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 21:41:25]

The CQ bit was checked by sammiequon@chromium.org

[sammiequon, 2017-05-05 21:41:25]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from apronin@google.com,
xiyuan@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002/#ps210001
(title: "Suffixed chromeos for chromeos compiling of secure_module_*.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-05 21:42:28]

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, 2017-05-06 00:24:01]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 210001, "attempt_start_ts": 1494020485175970,
"parent_rev": "504e47cd10aa741e9315fdd02d8092cb5101dbff", "commit_rev":
"6dfb54fcb774508b6679b8d83f0d935232b3a450"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-06 00:24:12]

Description was changed from

==========
cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want
to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to
M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings. There are
two locations, adding supervised user and OOBE EULA screen.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation
==========

to

==========
cros: Replace "TPM" with "secure module" for machines without TPM.

The new reef devices have a chip that is not a TPM so for these we do not want
to display TPM strings. For now duplicate the strings since we need to merge to
M58 & M59, but a follow up CL should use placeholders in the strings. There are
two locations, adding supervised user and OOBE EULA screen.

TEST=manual
BUG=716671
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:closure_compilation

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2856683002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#469826}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/6dfb54fcb774508b6679b8d83f0d...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-06 00:24:15]

Committed patchset #8 (id:210001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/6dfb54fcb774508b6679b8d83f0d...