Refactor sync_unit_tests target

Refactor sync_unit_tests target

Refactors the sync_unit_tests target so it no longer uses strange
export_dependent_settings hacks.  Rather than creating three separate
targets with type 'none' and having the sync_unit_tests target depend on
them, the new setup just puts those dependencies and sources in the
sync_unit_tests target directly.

BUG=397574
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=285695

[rlarocque, 2014-07-25 17:13:41]

Here's a proposed refactoring of the sync unit test files.  Please take a look
and let me know what you think.

[maniscalco, 2014-07-25 17:37:08]

On 2014/07/25 17:13:41, rlarocque wrote:
> Here's a proposed refactoring of the sync unit test files.  Please take a look
> and let me know what you think.

Nice work!  I like this change.  Do you know why it was organized the way it
was?  I'm struggling to see an advantage to the old organization (finer grained
ninja invocation?).  Or maybe it was to work around some limitation that no
longer exists?

[rlarocque, 2014-07-25 18:36:43]

On 2014/07/25 17:37:08, maniscalco wrote:
> On 2014/07/25 17:13:41, rlarocque wrote:
> > Here's a proposed refactoring of the sync unit test files.  Please take a
look
> > and let me know what you think.
> 
> Nice work!  I like this change.  Do you know why it was organized the way it
> was?  I'm struggling to see an advantage to the old organization (finer
grained
> ninja invocation?).  Or maybe it was to work around some limitation that no
> longer exists?

Here's the oldest CL I can find that includes the "type: none" hack: 
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9699057

The first use does seem to be intended to use the linker to verify some
assertions about dependencies.  From the comments, it looks like there was no
intention to use the executable it produced.

Here's the CL from the most recent round of gyp refactoring:
https://codereview.chromium.org/11412211

Looks like the same style just got carried over?

[maniscalco, 2014-07-25 19:58:59]

On 2014/07/25 18:36:43, rlarocque wrote:
> On 2014/07/25 17:37:08, maniscalco wrote:
> > On 2014/07/25 17:13:41, rlarocque wrote:
> > > Here's a proposed refactoring of the sync unit test files.  Please take a
> look
> > > and let me know what you think.
> > 
> > Nice work!  I like this change.  Do you know why it was organized the way it
> > was?  I'm struggling to see an advantage to the old organization (finer
> grained
> > ninja invocation?).  Or maybe it was to work around some limitation that no
> > longer exists?
> 
> Here's the oldest CL I can find that includes the "type: none" hack: 
> https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9699057
> 
> The first use does seem to be intended to use the linker to verify some
> assertions about dependencies.  From the comments, it looks like there was no
> intention to use the executable it produced.
> 
> Here's the CL from the most recent round of gyp refactoring:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/11412211
> 
> Looks like the same style just got carried over?

Interesting.  This is older than I would have thought.  I see no reason to keep
the "type: none" stuff.  Your change LGTM.

[rlarocque, 2014-07-25 20:57:58]

The CQ bit was checked by rlarocque@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-25 20:58:46]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/rlarocque@chromium.org/418163002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-25 21:55:37]

Change committed as 285695