Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
286103004:
Blocked volume up/down events that originated from remapped function keys. (Closed)
|
Created:
6 years, 7 months ago by bruthig Modified:
6 years, 6 months ago CC:
chromium-reviews, sadrul, nkostylev+watch_chromium.org, tdresser+watch_chromium.org, ben+ash_chromium.org, oshima+watch_chromium.org, kalyank, stevenjb+watch_chromium.org, davemoore+watch_chromium.org Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionBlocked volume up/down events that originated from remapped function keys.
BUG=368710
BUG=368669
Test=MaximizeModeControllerTest.AllowsVolumeControl
Test=EventRewriterTest.TestRewriteFunctionKeys
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=275488
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 11
Patch Set 2 : Updated AllowsVolumeControl comment and ifdefed events_test_utils_x11.h include. #
Total comments: 2
Patch Set 3 : Fixed bool logic to short circuit in event_generator.cc #
Total comments: 2
Patch Set 4 : Wrapped AllowsVolumeControl test in #ifdef (USE_X11) #
Total comments: 5
Patch Set 5 : Set the EF_FUNCTION_KEY flag in EventFlagsFromNative #
Total comments: 10
Patch Set 6 : Updated EventsXTest.FunctionKeyEvents to be more explicit. #
Total comments: 8
Patch Set 7 : Updated FunctionKeyEvents unit test to check EF_FUNCTION_KEY flag only if supported. #
Total comments: 4
Patch Set 8 : Minor nit fixes from previous patch set. #Patch Set 9 : Updated EventRewriterTest.RewriteFunctionKeys unit test. #Patch Set 10 : Added comment to EventRewriterTests explaining why function key tests are different. #Patch Set 11 : Merge of 'master' branch #
Messages
Total messages: 46 (0 generated)
In the description you can have the bugs listed on one line, separated by commas. BUG=#, # https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:421: // Tests that maximize mode does not block Volume Up & Down events. Update description to clarify that this differentiates dedicated buttons from remapped function keys. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:468: #endif // OS_CHROMEOS I see this is being brought into chrome os. Is there any of this test that we want to preserve for non-chromeos builds? https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... File chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc:634: if (!rewritten && (incoming.flags & ui::EF_COMMAND_DOWN)) { We are losing a path here. Is that intentional? https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... File chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc:629: state->flags |= ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY; Could you add a unittest that checks for this flag being added to an event that did not start with it?
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:421: // Tests that maximize mode does not block Volume Up & Down events. On 2014/05/23 18:48:49, jonross wrote: > Update description to clarify that this differentiates dedicated buttons from > remapped function keys. Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:468: #endif // OS_CHROMEOS On 2014/05/23 18:48:49, jonross wrote: > I see this is being brought into chrome os. Is there any of this test that we > want to preserve for non-chromeos builds? This is a chrome os specific test. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... File chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc:634: if (!rewritten && (incoming.flags & ui::EF_COMMAND_DOWN)) { On 2014/05/23 18:48:49, jonross wrote: > We are losing a path here. Is that intentional? Yes, this if block will only do work if they original key code exists in the kNumberKeysToFkeys map and this is mutually exclusive to the if block above. So as far as I can tell this change shouldn't affect this code path at all. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... File chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc:629: state->flags |= ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY; On 2014/05/23 18:48:49, jonross wrote: > Could you add a unittest that checks for this flag being added to an event that > did not start with it? Doesn't the existing/updated TestRewriteFunctionKeys cover this?
Some minor changes. Feel free to add flackr@ https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximiz... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:468: #endif // OS_CHROMEOS On 2014/05/23 19:50:07, bruthig wrote: > On 2014/05/23 18:48:49, jonross wrote: > > I see this is being brought into chrome os. Is there any of this test that we > > want to preserve for non-chromeos builds? > > This is a chrome os specific test. Sounds good. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... File chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc:629: state->flags |= ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY; On 2014/05/23 19:50:07, bruthig wrote: > On 2014/05/23 18:48:49, jonross wrote: > > Could you add a unittest that checks for this flag being added to an event > that > > did not start with it? > > Doesn't the existing/updated TestRewriteFunctionKeys cover this? It does, I mis-interpreted the large struct/array at the top of the function. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/even... chrome/browser/chromeos/events/event_rewriter.cc:630: } else if ((incoming.flags & ui::EF_COMMAND_DOWN)) { Add a bounds check for the keys this cares about: VKEY_0 -> VKEY_OEM_PLUS if they are a bounded range. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/20001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_event_blocker.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/20001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_event_blocker.cc:109: if ((key_event->flags() & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY) | nit: if not doing bit-wise math, use the short-circuit or: ||
sadrul@chromium.org: Please review changes in https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/20001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_event_blocker.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/20001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_event_blocker.cc:109: if ((key_event->flags() & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY) | On 2014/05/26 13:55:41, jonross wrote: > nit: if not doing bit-wise math, use the short-circuit or: || Done.
+kpschoedel@ do you mind reviewing the changes in chromeos/events/ https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/40001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/40001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:426: TEST_F(MaximizeModeControllerTest, AllowsVolumeControl) { wrap this test around if defined(USE_X11) instead of OS_CHROMEOS (or maybe both OS_CHROMEOS and USE_X11 if this doesn't apply to non-chromeos)
On 2014/05/26 14:39:52, sadrul wrote: > +kpschoedel@ do you mind reviewing the changes in chromeos/events/ Looks good.
oshima@chromium.org: Please review changes in https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/40001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/40001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:426: TEST_F(MaximizeModeControllerTest, AllowsVolumeControl) { On 2014/05/26 14:39:52, sadrul wrote: > wrap this test around if defined(USE_X11) instead of OS_CHROMEOS (or maybe both > OS_CHROMEOS and USE_X11 if this doesn't apply to non-chromeos) Done.
On 2014/05/26 14:53:58, bruthig wrote: > mailto:oshima@chromium.org: Please review changes in > > https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/40001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... > File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/40001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... > ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:426: > TEST_F(MaximizeModeControllerTest, AllowsVolumeControl) { > On 2014/05/26 14:39:52, sadrul wrote: > > wrap this test around if defined(USE_X11) instead of OS_CHROMEOS (or maybe > both > > OS_CHROMEOS and USE_X11 if this doesn't apply to non-chromeos) > > Done. LGTM
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ui/events/event_constants.h File ui/events/event_constants.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ui/events/event_constant... ui/events/event_constants.h:102: EF_FUNCTION_KEY = 1 << 18, // Key originates from function key row Shouldn't we set this flag in EventFlagsFromNative() too?
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:446: ui::KeyEvent press_f9(xevent, false /*is_char*/); /* is_char */ https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:474: #endif // OS_CHROMEOS Does this need to be cros only? asking because linux_aura now compiles ash.
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:446: ui::KeyEvent press_f9(xevent, false /*is_char*/); On 2014/05/27 17:15:46, oshima wrote: > /* is_char */ Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/60001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/max... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:474: #endif // OS_CHROMEOS On 2014/05/27 17:15:46, oshima wrote: > Does this need to be cros only? > asking because linux_aura now compiles ash. Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:374: XEvent event; Display* display = gfx::GetXDisplay(); split to two lines https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:379: ui::KeyboardCode ui_keycode; is this field used? https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:382: { false, XK_F1-1 }, space before/after - https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:420: { false, XK_F35+1 } ditto https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:431: } isn't it simpler to do something like EXPECT_FALSE(IsFunctionKey(XK_F1 - 1)); EXPECT_TRUE(IsFunctionKey(XK_F1)); EXPECT_FALSE(IsFunctionKey(XK_F35 + 1));
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:374: XEvent event; Display* display = gfx::GetXDisplay(); On 2014/05/30 17:03:19, oshima wrote: > split to two lines Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:379: ui::KeyboardCode ui_keycode; On 2014/05/30 17:03:19, oshima wrote: > is this field used? Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:382: { false, XK_F1-1 }, On 2014/05/30 17:03:19, oshima wrote: > space before/after - Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:420: { false, XK_F35+1 } On 2014/05/30 17:03:19, oshima wrote: > ditto Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/80001/ui/events/x/events_x_uni... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:431: } On 2014/05/30 17:03:19, oshima wrote: > isn't it simpler to do something like > > EXPECT_FALSE(IsFunctionKey(XK_F1 - 1)); > EXPECT_TRUE(IsFunctionKey(XK_F1)); > EXPECT_FALSE(IsFunctionKey(XK_F35 + 1)); This has been re-written but this has uncovered something, apparently the XK_F13 to XK_F35 keysyms get a return value of 0 from XKeysymToKeycode and with the rewritten test this causes it to fail. I'm not all that familiar with X11 KeySyms and KeyCodes so I'm not sure if I should update the test to only verify XK_F1 to XK_F12 or what, please advise. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:403: EXPECT_TRUE(HasFunctionKeyFlagSet(display, XK_F13)); The EXPECT_TRUE for XK_F13 to XK_F35 now fails because XKeysymToKeycode returns a value of 0 for these KeySyms. I'm not familiar enough with X11, KeySyms and KeyCodes to know what to do here. Please advise.
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:403: EXPECT_TRUE(HasFunctionKeyFlagSet(display, XK_F13)); On 2014/05/30 19:10:03, bruthig wrote: > The EXPECT_TRUE for XK_F13 to XK_F35 now fails because XKeysymToKeycode returns > a value of 0 for these KeySyms. I'm not familiar enough with X11, KeySyms and > KeyCodes to know what to do here. Please advise. Humm, maybe we can just skip or return true for such case. sadrul, what do you think?
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:69: return static_cast<bool>(ui_key_event.flags() & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY); Can you just do 'return (flags & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY);'? If not, how about 'return !!(flags & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY)' instead of static_cast<>? https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:71: return false; Call the function HasFunctionKeyFlagSetIfSupported(), and return true if x_keycode == 0; https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:403: EXPECT_TRUE(HasFunctionKeyFlagSet(display, XK_F13)); On 2014/05/30 21:13:06, oshima wrote: > On 2014/05/30 19:10:03, bruthig wrote: > > The EXPECT_TRUE for XK_F13 to XK_F35 now fails because XKeysymToKeycode > returns > > a value of 0 for these KeySyms. I'm not familiar enough with X11, KeySyms and > > KeyCodes to know what to do here. Please advise. > > Humm, maybe we can just skip or return true for such case. > > sadrul, what do you think? I agree. I left a suggestion above for this.
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:69: return static_cast<bool>(ui_key_event.flags() & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY); On 2014/05/30 21:23:21, sadrul wrote: > Can you just do 'return (flags & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY);'? > > If not, how about 'return !!(flags & ui::EF_FUNCTION_KEY)' instead of > static_cast<>? Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:71: return false; On 2014/05/30 21:23:21, sadrul wrote: > Call the function HasFunctionKeyFlagSetIfSupported(), and return true if > x_keycode == 0; Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/100001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:403: EXPECT_TRUE(HasFunctionKeyFlagSet(display, XK_F13)); On 2014/05/30 21:23:21, sadrul wrote: > On 2014/05/30 21:13:06, oshima wrote: > > On 2014/05/30 19:10:03, bruthig wrote: > > > The EXPECT_TRUE for XK_F13 to XK_F35 now fails because XKeysymToKeycode > > returns > > > a value of 0 for these KeySyms. I'm not familiar enough with X11, KeySyms > and > > > KeyCodes to know what to do here. Please advise. > > > > Humm, maybe we can just skip or return true for such case. > > > > sadrul, what do you think? > > I agree. I left a suggestion above for this. Done.
LGTM https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/ma... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/ma... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:474: #endif // USE_X11 defined(USE_X11) https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:73: return (x_keycode == 0); return true; (if |x_keycode| isn't 0, we would return in line 71)
lgtm
The CQ bit was checked by bruthig@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bruthig@chromium.org/286103004/120001
The CQ bit was unchecked by bruthig@chromium.org
https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/ma... File ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ash/wm/maximize_mode/ma... ash/wm/maximize_mode/maximize_mode_controller_unittest.cc:474: #endif // USE_X11 On 2014/06/02 14:37:07, sadrul wrote: > defined(USE_X11) Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... File ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/286103004/diff/120001/ui/events/x/events_x_un... ui/events/x/events_x_unittest.cc:73: return (x_keycode == 0); On 2014/06/02 14:37:07, sadrul wrote: > return true; (if |x_keycode| isn't 0, we would return in line 71) Done.
The CQ bit was checked by bruthig@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bruthig@chromium.org/286103004/140001
The CQ bit was unchecked by bruthig@chromium.org
I've had to update the EventRewriterTest.RewriteFunctionKeys unit test.
Sadrul/Kevin can one of you take a quick look at event_rewriter_unittests.cc before I submit this? Thanks :)
On 2014/06/04 14:13:29, bruthig wrote: > Sadrul/Kevin can one of you take a quick look at event_rewriter_unittests.cc > before I submit this? Thanks :) I'd add a comment explaining why the function key tests are different from the other tests.
The CQ bit was checked by bruthig@chromium.org
Comment added, adding to commit queue.
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bruthig@chromium.org/286103004/180001
The CQ bit was unchecked by bruthig@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by bruthig@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bruthig@chromium.org/286103004/180001
FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1). The failing builders are: android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...) android_dbg_triggered_tests on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg_triggered...) linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...) linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Try jobs failed on following builders: android_dbg_triggered_tests on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg_triggered...)
The CQ bit was checked by bruthig@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bruthig@chromium.org/286103004/180001
FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1). The failing builders are: android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...) android_dbg_triggered_tests on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg_triggered...) linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...) linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Try jobs failed on following builders: android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...)
The CQ bit was checked by bruthig@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bruthig@chromium.org/286103004/200001
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Change committed as 275488 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
