Move webkit resources over to content.

Move webkit resources over to content.

And while I'm at it, change the includes to use the qualified path for
the grit generated header file
($gen_dir/content/app/resources/grit/content_resources.h).

BUG=338338
TEST=None
R=avi@chromium.org,jamesr@chromium.org,thestig@chromium.org,tony@chromium.org
TBR=darin@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=291369

[tfarina, 2014-08-18 04:39:06]

+Lei for chrome/ (specially the DEPS changes).

+Tony for ui/base/resource/

[tfarina, 2014-08-18 04:41:08]

Note: I will remove webkit/glue/resources/README.txt,
webkit/glue/resources/default_100_percent and
webkit/glue/resources/default_200_percent in the next CL to not make this CL
even bigger and to avoid any possible problems that it might cause.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2014-08-18 15:02:59]

content/ LGTM, comment on random file.

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/tools/emacs/trybot-mac.txt
File tools/emacs/trybot-mac.txt (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/tools/emacs/trybot-mac.t...
tools/emacs/trybot-mac.txt:1: /b/build/third_party/zope/__init__.py:19:
UserWarning: Module twisted was already imported from
/b/build/third_party/twisted_8_1/twisted/__init__.pyc, but
/System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/Extras/lib/python is
being added to sys.path
This looks like a sample build file. I don't see it as something we need to
edit.

[tony, 2014-08-18 16:24:52]

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
File ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm:63:
GetResourcesPakFilePath(@"content_resources_200_percent", nil),
I am still skeptical that Mac needs to load this file in addition to
chrome_200_percent.  Please investigate and figure out if it is necessary.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2014-08-18 16:33:29]

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
File ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm:63:
GetResourcesPakFilePath(@"content_resources_200_percent", nil),
On 2014/08/18 16:24:52, tony wrote:
> I am still skeptical that Mac needs to load this file in addition to
> chrome_200_percent.

Why do you say that? My understanding is that chrome_200_percent is for the
chrome stuff, and webkit_resources_200_percent is the blink-level stuff. Why
would the Mac not need the 200% stuff for the content?

[tony, 2014-08-18 16:46:20]

On 2014/08/18 16:33:29, Avi wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
> File ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
> ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm:63:
> GetResourcesPakFilePath(@"content_resources_200_percent", nil),
> On 2014/08/18 16:24:52, tony wrote:
> > I am still skeptical that Mac needs to load this file in addition to
> > chrome_200_percent.
> 
> Why do you say that? My understanding is that chrome_200_percent is for the
> chrome stuff, and webkit_resources_200_percent is the blink-level stuff. Why
> would the Mac not need the 200% stuff for the content?

On all platforms, we merge all the pak files (ui_resources, ash_resources,
renderer_resources, theme_resources) into the chrome_* pak files:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/chrome/chrome_repa...

The resources from webkit*.pak should already be in chrome*.pak.  Also, none of
the other platforms load (or ship)  webkit*pak file.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2014-08-18 16:55:00]

On 2014/08/18 16:46:20, tony wrote:
> On 2014/08/18 16:33:29, Avi wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
> > File ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
> > ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm:63:
> > GetResourcesPakFilePath(@"content_resources_200_percent", nil),
> > On 2014/08/18 16:24:52, tony wrote:
> > > I am still skeptical that Mac needs to load this file in addition to
> > > chrome_200_percent.
> > 
> > Why do you say that? My understanding is that chrome_200_percent is for the
> > chrome stuff, and webkit_resources_200_percent is the blink-level stuff. Why
> > would the Mac not need the 200% stuff for the content?
> 
> On all platforms, we merge all the pak files (ui_resources, ash_resources,
> renderer_resources, theme_resources) into the chrome_* pak files:
>
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/chrome/chrome_repa...
> 
> The resources from webkit*.pak should already be in chrome*.pak.  Also, none
of
> the other platforms load (or ship)  webkit*pak file.

That means that we shouldn't load the 100% file either, if it's all supposed to
be merged.

[tony, 2014-08-18 16:57:55]

On 2014/08/18 16:55:00, Avi wrote:
> On 2014/08/18 16:46:20, tony wrote:
> > On 2014/08/18 16:33:29, Avi wrote:
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
> > > File ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/ui/base/resource/resourc...
> > > ui/base/resource/resource_bundle_mac.mm:63:
> > > GetResourcesPakFilePath(@"content_resources_200_percent", nil),
> > > On 2014/08/18 16:24:52, tony wrote:
> > > > I am still skeptical that Mac needs to load this file in addition to
> > > > chrome_200_percent.
> > > 
> > > Why do you say that? My understanding is that chrome_200_percent is for
the
> > > chrome stuff, and webkit_resources_200_percent is the blink-level stuff.
Why
> > > would the Mac not need the 200% stuff for the content?
> > 
> > On all platforms, we merge all the pak files (ui_resources, ash_resources,
> > renderer_resources, theme_resources) into the chrome_* pak files:
> >
>
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/chrome/chrome_repa...
> > 
> > The resources from webkit*.pak should already be in chrome*.pak.  Also, none
> of
> > the other platforms load (or ship)  webkit*pak file.
> 
> That means that we shouldn't load the 100% file either, if it's all supposed
to
> be merged.

Yes, that's correct.  I don't think we need to load
content_resources_100_percent.pak either since the resources should already be
included in chrome_100_percent.pak.

[Lei Zhang, 2014-08-18 23:10:42]

GYP currently puts the generated grit header file at
out/Release/gen/content/grit/content_resources.h, and I have been making GN
match GYP in chrome/, not the other way around.

[tfarina, 2014-08-19 02:37:17]

On Monday, August 18, 2014, <thestig@chromium.org> wrote:

> GYP currently puts the generated grit header file at
> out/Release/gen/content/grit/content_resources.h,

Nope. In my content_resources.gyp I do not define grit_out_dir that way.

It is SHARED_INTERMEDIATE_DIR/content/app/resources

 and I have been making GN match GYP in chrome/, not the other way around.

That is good for conversion from GYP to GN, but not good when it will be GN
only, since the path won't match the location of the file.

In any case, that is not the case here, because both my GN and GYP paths
match.


>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/
>


-- 
Thiago Farina

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

[Lei Zhang, 2014-08-19 02:48:26]

On 2014/08/19 02:37:17, tfarina wrote:
> On Monday, August 18, 2014, <mailto:thestig@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > GYP currently puts the generated grit header file at
> > out/Release/gen/content/grit/content_resources.h,
> 
> Nope. In my content_resources.gyp I do not define grit_out_dir that way.
> 
> It is SHARED_INTERMEDIATE_DIR/content/app/resources
> 
>  and I have been making GN match GYP in chrome/, not the other way around.
> 
> That is good for conversion from GYP to GN, but not good when it will be GN
> only, since the path won't match the location of the file.
> 
> In any case, that is not the case here, because both my GN and GYP paths
> match.

What I'm trying to say is, in chrome/, I have been changing GN to match GYP.
Here, you are changing GYP to match GN. We should decide on which way to go so
we don't end up with chrome/grit/foo.h for chrome/apps/foo.grd and
content/apps/grit/bar.h for content/apps/bar.grd.

[tfarina, 2014-08-19 03:46:30]

On Monday, August 18, 2014, <thestig@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2014/08/19 02:37:17, tfarina wrote:
>
>> On Monday, August 18, 2014, <mailto:thestig@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>
>  > GYP currently puts the generated grit header file at
>> > out/Release/gen/content/grit/content_resources.h,
>>
>
>  Nope. In my content_resources.gyp I do not define grit_out_dir that way.
>>
>
>  It is SHARED_INTERMEDIATE_DIR/content/app/resources
>>
>
>    and I have been making GN match GYP in chrome/, not the other way
>> around.
>>
>
>  That is good for conversion from GYP to GN, but not good when it will be
>> GN
>> only, since the path won't match the location of the file.
>>
>
>  In any case, that is not the case here, because both my GN and GYP paths
>> match.
>>
>
> What I'm trying to say is, in chrome/, I have been changing GN to match
> GYP.
> Here, you are changing GYP to match GN.

No, I'm not changing GYP here.

content_resources path are the same for both GYP and GN, because they were
written from scratch (almost).

 We should decide on which way to go so
> we don't end up with chrome/grit/foo.h for chrome/apps/foo.grd and
> content/apps/grit/bar.h for content/apps/bar.grd.
>
> I get your idea, but there is no content/apps/grit, instead it is
content/apps/resources/grit.

And it is the same for GN and for GYP. Did you look at
content/app/resources/BUILD.gn and
content/app/resources/content_resources.gyp?

I think you are complaning because it is coming from
SHARED_INTERMEDIATED_DIR/webkit to
SHARED_INTERMEDIATED_DIR/content/app/resources?

I see you are trying to make GN match GYP, but I don't think there is a
point here.

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/
>


-- 
Thiago Farina

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

[Lei Zhang, 2014-08-19 05:05:32]

chrome/ lgtm with a nit.

I'll email you separately regarding the content/app/.../grit vs content/grit
issue, which manifests here but should not stop this CL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/chrome/chrome_tests_unit...
File chrome/chrome_tests_unit.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/chrome/chrome_tests_unit...
chrome/chrome_tests_unit.gypi:2006:
'../content/app/resources/content_resources.gyp:content_resources',
content after components

[tfarina, 2014-08-22 01:28:32]

Tony, I will investigate the usage of webkit_resources_100_percent.apk in
ui/base in a follow up CL. (I don't want to break this CL).

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/chrome/chrome_tests_unit...
File chrome/chrome_tests_unit.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/486573002/diff/40001/chrome/chrome_tests_unit...
chrome/chrome_tests_unit.gypi:2006:
'../content/app/resources/content_resources.gyp:content_resources',
On 2014/08/19 05:05:32, Lei Zhang wrote:
> content after components

Done.

[tfarina, 2014-08-22 02:11:05]

TBRing Darin for this...

[tfarina, 2014-08-22 02:11:30]

The CQ bit was checked by tfarina@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 02:12:50]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tfarina@chromium.org/486573002/110001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 03:25:04]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 04:12:34]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 04:12:35]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_dbg_tests_recipe on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_dbg_tes...)

[tfarina, 2014-08-22 04:23:31]

The CQ bit was checked by tfarina@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 04:25:03]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tfarina@chromium.org/486573002/110001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 05:20:19]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 06:14:10]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 06:14:11]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_dbg_tests_recipe on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_dbg_tes...)

[Lei Zhang, 2014-08-22 07:22:24]

The CQ bit was checked by thestig@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 07:26:29]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tfarina@chromium.org/486573002/110001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 10:21:23]

Committed patchset #7 (110001) as 291369