Adjustments to the fatnav and sidenav, and other CSS updates

Change log:
* Sidenav subnav has a grey bg. 
* Only the article page ToC is sticky when scrolling (not entire sidenav area)
* In ToC, can now click through on h2 headings when there are child h3 headings (previously it would only expand the menu and not go to the anchor link)
* Fixed bug where sidebar overlapped with article body
* Removed misleading mouse pointer cursor on fatnav for non-clickable items.
* Removed -webkit and other prefixes for box shadows and linear gradients
* Added .video-container class so YouTube video will be responsive

BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=275629

[pearlchen, 2014-05-26 15:47:49]

These are JavaScript and CSS improvements to the UX of the top navigation (aka
fatnav) and the right sidebar nav on the developer.chrome.com docs.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-05-27 16:43:09]

I think Meggin is a better reviewer?

[pearlchen, 2014-05-27 17:00:42]

Meggin's seen it already but maybe if Meggin wants to give the first LGTM, that
works.

[pearlchen, 2014-05-28 19:24:05]

Meggin, I've added a class in there too so YouTube videos can be responsive.

[mkearney1, 2014-06-03 16:55:04]

lgtm

Tested the patch to make sure it works, and it does.

Also quick review of content, and just found one small nit.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/articles/about_apps.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/articles/about_apps.html:15: <iframe
title="YouTube video player" width="610" height="380"
src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lBUGTVIJVfM" frameborder="0"
allowfullscreen></iframe>
Small nit-- remove extra space.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-03 17:29:42]

rubberstamp lgtm

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-03 17:44:00]

sorry didn't realise you changed js; those changes not lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:24: var tocOffsetTop = null;
caching this doesn't save much, and I'm not sure what will happen if
toggleStickySidenav() is called before it's initialized, which seems very
possible.

can you make this a function instead?

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:45:
toc.classList.remove('sticky');
you can write this as toc.classList.toggle('sticky', window.scrollY >=
tocOffsetTop);

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:49: window.clearTimeout(
debounceTimeout );
no spaces

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:80: if
(e.target.parentElement.parentElement.parentElement.
this looks like it could easily regress. could you use querySelector[All], maybe
like

[].indexOf.call(toc.querySelectorAll('.active a')) >= 0

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:88: if
(e.target.parentElement.classList.contains('active')){
in fact maybe the selector only needs to be '.active *' then this check is
covered too?

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:93:
[].forEach.call(toc.querySelectorAll('.active'), function(li){
function(li) { not function(li){

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:98: if
(e.target.classList.contains('hastoc')) {
do you need to step up the parent chain to find the element with 'hastoc'?

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/search.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/search.js:31: // console.log("running
enableAutoComplete");
just delete it?

[pearlchen, 2014-06-03 22:52:14]

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:24: var tocOffsetTop = null;
But then this value would have to be calculated (sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop
+ toc.offsetTop) on nearly every scroll event, rather than on just page load +
window resize.

I will update it so it initializes to the value that it's suppose to be.

On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> caching this doesn't save much, and I'm not sure what will happen if
> toggleStickySidenav() is called before it's initialized, which seems very
> possible.
> 
> can you make this a function instead?

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:76: if (e.target.localName
=== 'a') {
Simplified this click callback by changing if to:
if (e.target.classList.contains('hastoc') &&
!e.target.parentElement.classList.contains('active')) {

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:80: if
(e.target.parentElement.parentElement.parentElement.
This always come out false for me. However, I think I've simplified this part so
check out my next CL upload.

On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> this looks like it could easily regress. could you use querySelector[All],
maybe
> like
> 
> [].indexOf.call(toc.querySelectorAll('.active a')) >= 0

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/search.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/search.js:31: // console.log("running
enableAutoComplete");
sure

On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> just delete it?

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/articles/about_apps.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/articles/about_apps.html:15: <iframe
title="YouTube video player" width="610" height="380"
src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lBUGTVIJVfM" frameborder="0"
allowfullscreen></iframe>
Looks like this entire document was tabbed using tabs rather than spaces.
Converted in next upload.

On 2014/06/03 16:55:05, mkearney1 wrote:
> Small nit-- remove extra space.

[pearlchen, 2014-06-03 23:04:26]

Okay, new version uploaded.

This is a good page to test the sidenav since there's multiple expandable nav
sections:
https://chrome-apps-doc.appspot.com/_patch/291663002/extensions/overview

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-05 17:09:21]

On 2014/06/03 23:04:26, pearlchen wrote:
> Okay, new version uploaded.
> 
> This is a good page to test the sidenav since there's multiple expandable nav
> sections:
> https://chrome-apps-doc.appspot.com/_patch/291663002/extensions/overview

nice! I'm noticing that clicking on the [+] jumps to the heading. I think that
clicking the [+] should only expand that (while clicking on the title *should*
jump).

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-05 17:09:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:24: var tocOffsetTop = null;
On 2014/06/03 22:52:13, pearlchen wrote:
> But then this value would have to be calculated
(sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop
> + toc.offsetTop) on nearly every scroll event, rather than on just page load +
> window resize.
> 
> I will update it so it initializes to the value that it's suppose to be.
> 
> On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> > caching this doesn't save much, and I'm not sure what will happen if
> > toggleStickySidenav() is called before it's initialized, which seems very
> > possible.
> > 
> > can you make this a function instead?
> 

what's the problem with adding up a couple of values each time?

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:80: if
(e.target.parentElement.parentElement.parentElement.
On 2014/06/03 22:52:13, pearlchen wrote:
> This always come out false for me. However, I think I've simplified this part
so
> check out my next CL upload.
> 
> On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> > this looks like it could easily regress. could you use querySelector[All],
> maybe
> > like
> > 
> > [].indexOf.call(toc.querySelectorAll('.active a')) >= 0
> 

i missed out the .length in my code sample, sorry

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-05 17:20:20]

to reiterate, the new appearance and behaviour is fantastic.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:83: 
no blank line here

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:84: }
also it's good practice to e.preventDefault/e.stopPropagation unless there's
good reason not too.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-05 17:23:47]

also there are a couple of toc-related bugs that this patch might apply to,
330468 and 330044.

so put those in BUG= if they apply.

I also swear I filed a specific bug about the annoying behaviour where you can't
jump to a <h2>, but maybe it was just a complaint directly to meggin..

[pearlchen, 2014-06-05 18:10:28]

On 2014/06/05 17:09:21, kalman wrote:
> On 2014/06/03 23:04:26, pearlchen wrote:
> > Okay, new version uploaded.
> > 
> > This is a good page to test the sidenav since there's multiple expandable
nav
> > sections:
> > https://chrome-apps-doc.appspot.com/_patch/291663002/extensions/overview
> 
> nice! I'm noticing that clicking on the [+] jumps to the heading. I think that
> clicking the [+] should only expand that (while clicking on the title *should*
> jump).

So part of the reason why the sidebar was perceived to be "buggy" was because it
was implemented as a ::after psuedo-element. (You can't attach JS to
pseudo-elements). 

Without doing any restructuring, my suggestion would be to downplay that the +
sign is clickable by making it very light gray (see
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6578923/dcc/light-gray-faux-toggle.png) or
removing completely.

What do you think, Meggin?

[pearlchen, 2014-06-05 19:38:47]

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:24: var tocOffsetTop = null;
Doesn't continual reading of the DOM affect performance?

On 2014/06/05 17:09:40, kalman wrote:
> On 2014/06/03 22:52:13, pearlchen wrote:
> > But then this value would have to be calculated
> (sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop
> > + toc.offsetTop) on nearly every scroll event, rather than on just page load
+
> > window resize.
> > 
> > I will update it so it initializes to the value that it's suppose to be.
> > 
> > On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> > > caching this doesn't save much, and I'm not sure what will happen if
> > > toggleStickySidenav() is called before it's initialized, which seems very
> > > possible.
> > > 
> > > can you make this a function instead?
> > 
> 
> what's the problem with adding up a couple of values each time?

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:45:
toc.classList.remove('sticky');
On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> you can write this as toc.classList.toggle('sticky', window.scrollY >=
> tocOffsetTop);

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:49: window.clearTimeout(
debounceTimeout );
On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> no spaces

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/100001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:93:
[].forEach.call(toc.querySelectorAll('.active'), function(li){
On 2014/06/03 17:44:00, kalman wrote:
> function(li) { not function(li){

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:83: 
On 2014/06/05 17:20:20, kalman wrote:
> no blank line here

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:84: }
I definitely don't want preventDefault but what would the benefit of
stopPropagation be here? Performance?

On 2014/06/05 17:20:20, kalman wrote:
> also it's good practice to e.preventDefault/e.stopPropagation unless there's
> good reason not too.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-05 19:43:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/170001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:84: }
On 2014/06/05 19:38:47, pearlchen wrote:
> I definitely don't want preventDefault but what would the benefit of
> stopPropagation be here? Performance?
> 
> On 2014/06/05 17:20:20, kalman wrote:
> > also it's good practice to e.preventDefault/e.stopPropagation unless there's
> > good reason not too.
> 

actually the preventDefault thing would fix the issue I was seeing with the
expansion, hence my comment :) but if it's a feature not a bug.. hm.

as for stopPropagation, performance is one argument, but generally I think it's
good practice though not essential.

[chromium-reviews, 2014-06-05 20:30:03]

Hey, Pearl

We had an original plan to make the table of contents interactive-- as you
moved down the page, the sections would expand accordingly. Ran out of
time, and it was dropped.

Is this something you might be able to do? I could scratch out the design
easy enough if words don't capture it.

Also, it's something that could be done in a separate url-- so I say launch
and iterate :).

Meggin


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:10 AM, <pearlchen@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2014/06/05 17:09:21, kalman wrote:
>
>> On 2014/06/03 23:04:26, pearlchen wrote:
>> > Okay, new version uploaded.
>> >
>> > This is a good page to test the sidenav since there's multiple
>> expandable
>>
> nav
>
>> > sections:
>> > https://chrome-apps-doc.appspot.com/_patch/291663002/
>> extensions/overview
>>
>
>  nice! I'm noticing that clicking on the [+] jumps to the heading. I think
>> that
>> clicking the [+] should only expand that (while clicking on the title
>> *should*
>> jump).
>>
>
> So part of the reason why the sidebar was perceived to be "buggy" was
> because it
> was implemented as a ::after psuedo-element. (You can't attach JS to
> pseudo-elements).
>
> Without doing any restructuring, my suggestion would be to downplay that
> the +
> sign is clickable by making it very light gray (see
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6578923/dcc/light-gray-faux-toggle.png)
> or
> removing completely.
>
> What do you think, Meggin?
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[pearlchen, 2014-06-05 20:33:27]

On 2014/06/05 20:30:03, chromium-reviews_chromium.org wrote:
> Hey, Pearl
> 
> We had an original plan to make the table of contents interactive-- as you
> moved down the page, the sections would expand accordingly. Ran out of
> time, and it was dropped.
> 
> Is this something you might be able to do? I could scratch out the design
> easy enough if words don't capture it.
> 
> Also, it's something that could be done in a separate url-- so I say launch
> and iterate :).
> 
> Meggin
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:10 AM, <mailto:pearlchen@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2014/06/05 17:09:21, kalman wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014/06/03 23:04:26, pearlchen wrote:
> >> > Okay, new version uploaded.
> >> >
> >> > This is a good page to test the sidenav since there's multiple
> >> expandable
> >>
> > nav
> >
> >> > sections:
> >> > https://chrome-apps-doc.appspot.com/_patch/291663002/
> >> extensions/overview
> >>
> >
> >  nice! I'm noticing that clicking on the [+] jumps to the heading. I think
> >> that
> >> clicking the [+] should only expand that (while clicking on the title
> >> *should*
> >> jump).
> >>
> >
> > So part of the reason why the sidebar was perceived to be "buggy" was
> > because it
> > was implemented as a ::after psuedo-element. (You can't attach JS to
> > pseudo-elements).
> >
> > Without doing any restructuring, my suggestion would be to downplay that
> > the +
> > sign is clickable by making it very light gray (see
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6578923/dcc/light-gray-faux-toggle.png)
> > or
> > removing completely.
> >
> > What do you think, Meggin?
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/
> >
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email
> to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

Let's track that as a different issue :)

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-05 20:35:39]

yep - I think the new behaviour is better than the current behaviour, but I
would like to see some way of expanding these without the jarring effect of
jumping around.

can we even just.. always expand them given some heuristic?

anyway, lg after my last couple of comments.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/190001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/190001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:54: tocOffsetTop =
sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
so yeah... re-setting this global variable implies to me that it should be a
function getTocOffsetTop()?

[pearlchen, 2014-06-05 21:15:47]

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/190001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/190001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:54: tocOffsetTop =
sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
A get, or a set?

e.g. 
function updateTocOffsetTop(){
  tocOffsetTop = sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
}

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-05 22:28:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/190001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/190001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:54: tocOffsetTop =
sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
On 2014/06/05 21:15:47, pearlchen wrote:
> A get, or a set?
> 
> e.g. 
> function updateTocOffsetTop(){
>   tocOffsetTop = sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
> }

a get; try to take away the global variable

[pearlchen, 2014-06-06 17:36:56]

Ready to go??

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:44:
toc.classList.remove('sticky');
(Documenting bug here since I don't know where else to note this.)

There is an overlap bug when tocOffsetTop is calculated when the toc is already
sticky. Fix is to remove sticky before reading offsetTop value.

Scenario #1:
1. Scroll down until TOC is sticky
2. Resize browser to be mobile width
3. Resize back to non-mobile width
4. Scroll up
--> TOC overlaps sidenav

Scenario #2:
1. Scroll down until TOC is sticky
2. Reload page
3. Scroll up
--> TOC overlaps sidenav

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:45: var tocOffsetTop =
sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
As requested, tocOffsetTop moved into this function as a local variable. 

Between this line and line 44, the DOM is read/written to twice on every scroll
event. Not happy about that from a performance standpoint but if having a local
variable is more important, then so be it.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-06 17:40:16]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:44:
toc.classList.remove('sticky');
On 2014/06/06 17:36:55, pearlchen wrote:
> (Documenting bug here since I don't know where else to note this.)
> 
> There is an overlap bug when tocOffsetTop is calculated when the toc is
already
> sticky. Fix is to remove sticky before reading offsetTop value.
> 
> Scenario #1:
> 1. Scroll down until TOC is sticky
> 2. Resize browser to be mobile width
> 3. Resize back to non-mobile width
> 4. Scroll up
> --> TOC overlaps sidenav
> 
> Scenario #2:
> 1. Scroll down until TOC is sticky
> 2. Reload page
> 3. Scroll up
> --> TOC overlaps sidenav

ah. so that is avoided by caching the tocOffsetTop value? ok, that's worth
avoiding.

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:45: var tocOffsetTop =
sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
On 2014/06/06 17:36:56, pearlchen wrote:
> As requested, tocOffsetTop moved into this function as a local variable. 
> 
> Between this line and line 44, the DOM is read/written to twice on every
scroll
> event. Not happy about that from a performance standpoint but if having a
local
> variable is more important, then so be it.

is this performance hit by the adding/removal of the stick property? that likely
would cause a performance issue, in which case... yeah, it sounds like what you
had before is better after all. sorry about that!

[pearlchen, 2014-06-06 18:10:01]

The CQ bit was checked by pearlchen@chromium.org

[pearlchen, 2014-06-06 18:10:30]

The CQ bit was unchecked by pearlchen@chromium.org

[pearlchen, 2014-06-06 18:30:03]

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/291663002/diff/210001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/js/article.js:45: var tocOffsetTop =
sidebar.offsetParent.offsetTop + toc.offsetTop;
From what I know, evening *reading* offsetTop will cause a browser reflow.

On 2014/06/06 17:40:16, kalman wrote:
> On 2014/06/06 17:36:56, pearlchen wrote:
> > As requested, tocOffsetTop moved into this function as a local variable. 
> > 
> > Between this line and line 44, the DOM is read/written to twice on every
> scroll
> > event. Not happy about that from a performance standpoint but if having a
> local
> > variable is more important, then so be it.
> 
> is this performance hit by the adding/removal of the stick property? that
likely
> would cause a performance issue, in which case... yeah, it sounds like what
you
> had before is better after all. sorry about that!

[pearlchen, 2014-06-06 18:30:14]

The CQ bit was checked by pearlchen@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-06 18:33:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/pearlchen@chromium.org/291663002/230001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-06 21:30:22]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/chromium_presubmit/bu...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-06 21:33:33]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-06 21:33:33]

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

[pearlchen, 2014-06-06 21:48:45]

kalman, I updated files that were missing copyright notices. Do you have to give
a new lgtm before I try committing again?


On 2014/06/06 21:33:33, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium
>
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/chromium_presubmit/bu...)

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014-06-06 21:52:37]

no, just go ahead

[pearlchen, 2014-06-06 21:53:52]

The CQ bit was checked by pearlchen@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-06 21:57:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/pearlchen@chromium.org/291663002/250001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-07 03:48:59]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-07 05:36:49]

Change committed as 275629