Make the Bookmark Manager aware of managed bookmarks.

chrome/browser/resources/bookmark_manager/js/bmm.js

 // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
 cr.define('bmm', function() {
   /**
+   * The id of the managed node.
+   * @type {string}
+   * @const
+   */
+  var MANAGED_NODE_ID = '4';
+
+  /**
    * Whether a node contains another node.
    * TODO(yosin): Once JavaScript style guide is updated and linter follows
    * that, we'll remove useless documentations for |parent| and |descendant|.
    * TODO(yosin): bmm.contains() should be method of BookmarkTreeNode.
    * @param {!BookmarkTreeNode} parent .
    * @param {!BookmarkTreeNode} descendant .
    * @return {boolean} Whether the parent contains the descendant.
    */
   function contains(parent, descendant) {
     if (descendant.parentId == parent.id)
       return true;
     // the bmm.treeLookup contains all folders
     var parentTreeItem = bmm.treeLookup[descendant.parentId];
     if (!parentTreeItem || !parentTreeItem.bookmarkNode)
       return false;
     return this.contains(parent, parentTreeItem.bookmarkNode);
   }
 
   /**
    * @param {!BookmarkTreeNode} node The node to test.
    * @return {boolean} Whether a bookmark node is a folder.
    */
   function isFolder(node) {
     return !('url' in node);
   }
 
+  /**
+   * @param {!BookmarkTreeNode} node The node to test.

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2014/06/02 23:33:23]

The code assumes node can be null but the type annotation contradicts that.
Which one is right?

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2014/06/02 23:33:23]

Remove useless description

[Joao da Silva, 2014/06/03 14:07:54]

The annotation is wrong, fixed.

[Joao da Silva, 2014/06/03 14:07:54]

PRESUBMIT.py runs a javascript linter that fails without it:

  E0214: Missing description in @param tag

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2014/06/03 14:31:38]

Sad. Our linter is out of date.

+   * @return {boolean} Whether a bookmark node is managed.
+   */
+  function isManaged(node) {
+    if (!node)
+      return false;
+    if (node.id === MANAGED_NODE_ID)
+      return true;
+    return this.contains(bmm.treeLookup[MANAGED_NODE_ID].bookmarkNode, node);

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2014/06/02 23:33:23]

This is O(depth). Is that acceptable?

[Joao da Silva, 2014/06/03 14:07:54]

I think it's fine because the bookmarks tree is rather shallow. Even a tree with
a depth of 1000 nodes would be quickly traversed, and this is performed only
when determining if a command is enabled (e.g. right-clicking a node, clicking
the Organize menu).

Also, these bookmarks are capped to a depth of at most 50, because each
declaration stacks 2 levels in the JSON representation and the JSONReader has a
max depth of 100.

+  }
+
   var loadingPromises = {};
 
   /**
    * Promise version of chrome.bookmarkManagerPrivate.getSubtree.
    * @param {string} id .
    * @param {boolean} foldersOnly .
    * @return {!Promise.<!Array.<!BookmarkTreeNode>>} .
    */
   function getSubtreePromise(id, foldersOnly) {
     return new Promise(function(resolve) {
@@ skipping 192 matching lines @@
     chrome.bookmarks.onCreated.addListener(handleCreated);
     chrome.bookmarks.onMoved.addListener(handleMoved);
     chrome.bookmarks.onRemoved.addListener(handleRemoved);
     chrome.bookmarks.onImportBegan.addListener(handleImportBegan);
     chrome.bookmarks.onImportEnded.addListener(handleImportEnded);
   };
 
   return {
     contains: contains,
     isFolder: isFolder,
+    isManaged: isManaged,
     loadSubtree: loadSubtree,
     loadTree: loadTree,
     addBookmarkModelListeners: addBookmarkModelListeners
   };
 });