Omnibox: Add Field Trial to Create UWYT When Inlining

Omnibox: Add Field Trial to Create UWYT When Inlining

Currently when HistoryURL provider decides to promote a match
for inline autocompletion, it will then decline to offer a what-you-typed
match even if it's valid and reasonable.

This behavior can cause problems in DisableInling mode because
this means that sometimes HistoryURL provider will not create a UWYT
match.  Consequently, the default match in this mode can become a
search-what-you-typed even when the input is a valid URL.  This causes
all sorts of badness and irritation.

This changelist creates a new mechanism, controlled through a field
trial parameter, that forces creation of the UWYT match if it wasn't
added due to this reason (promoted URL for inline autocompletion).

This is one approach to implement this strategy.  The other approach
is in https://codereview.chromium.org/347963002/

Did some basic tests using a local field trial server with the
proper params.

BUG=380357

[Mark P, 2014-06-10 21:50:54]

This should be trivial.  Feel free to object if you think it should be bundled
with a bigger change.

--mark

[Peter Kasting, 2014-06-10 22:27:02]

On 2014/06/10 21:50:54, Mark P wrote:
> This should be trivial.  Feel free to object if you think it should be bundled
> with a bigger change.

I am about to make a nontrivial change to this piece of code, so let me get that
in (or at least up for review) first -- it may significantly change how we
decide to do this.

[Mark P, 2014-06-10 22:40:01]

On 2014/06/10 22:27:02, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On 2014/06/10 21:50:54, Mark P wrote:
> > This should be trivial.  Feel free to object if you think it should be
bundled
> > with a bigger change.
> 
> I am about to make a nontrivial change to this piece of code, so let me get
that
> in (or at least up for review) first -- it may significantly change how we
> decide to do this.

Okay, but note that fixing the disable inlining experiment is the only thing on
my plate for M-37, so please don't make me wait too long.

--mark

[Mark P, 2014-06-11 22:51:44]

Peter,

I know you asked me to hold off on this change.  Regardless, I thought I'd try
my hand at fixing the underlying problem that this "minor restructuring" was
prelude to.  The latest patchset is my proposed fix.  I did not update the
changelist description.  Take a look at the patch if you're curious.

I haven't tested it yet.

--mark

[Peter Kasting, 2014-06-11 22:58:35]

I _think_ this will be easier to do after my changes, but I'm not sure.

[Mark P, 2014-06-12 23:53:55]

On 2014/06/11 22:58:35, Peter Kasting wrote:
> I _think_ this will be easier to do after my changes, but I'm not sure.

FYI, I tested this code and it works.
i.e., with the create UWYT field trial turned on, the disable inlining code
behaves nicely.
and this trial seems to work fine on its own

--mark

[Mark P, 2014-06-15 18:08:41]

On 2014/06/12 23:53:55, Mark P wrote:
> On 2014/06/11 22:58:35, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > I _think_ this will be easier to do after my changes, but I'm not sure.
> 
> FYI, I tested this code and it works.
> i.e., with the create UWYT field trial turned on, the disable inlining code
> behaves nicely.
> and this trial seems to work fine on its own
> 
> --mark

A friendly reminder that I need this code reviewed and submitted by the end of
Thursday.

--mark

[Mark P, 2014-06-20 04:42:57]

As I mentioned in the other e-mail, this is the most alternate way to implement
what I want.  Please take a look ASAP.

thanks,
mark

[Mark P, 2014-06-23 21:19:31]

On 2014/06/20 04:42:57, Mark P wrote:
> As I mentioned in the other e-mail, this is the most alternate way to
implement
> what I want.  Please take a look ASAP.
> 
> thanks,
> mark

Abandoned in favor of the alternate implementation mentioned in the changelist
description.

--mark