Hide PopupZoomer when the container view or window loses focus

Hide PopupZoomer when the container view or window loses focus

Resubmitting the patch 
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=291365
which was reverted as it caused a FindBug failure due to not calling 
the Super method in the setUp method in PopupZoomerTest class.

Adding call to to super.setUp() to fix the warning.

BUG=405477, 406272
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=291430

[raghu, 2014-08-22 14:51:44]

Hi Jdduke,
My earlier patch https://codereview.chromium.org/470193005/
was reverted as it broke FindBugs.

Here I have uploaded the same patch after fixing the issue in FindBugs.

PTAL.

[jdduke (slow), 2014-08-22 14:58:52]

On 2014/08/22 14:51:44, rvg wrote:
> Hi Jdduke,
> My earlier patch https://codereview.chromium.org/470193005/
> was reverted as it broke FindBugs.
> 
> Here I have uploaded the same patch after fixing the issue in FindBugs.
> 
> PTAL.

What was the findbugs failure? Please link to the original patch in your
description, and also say why it was reverted and what you did to fix it.

[picksi1, 2014-08-22 15:06:17]

AFAIK LGTM!

I looked into this while on Sheriff duty and noticed that the call to
super.setUp() and the 'throws Exception' pattern followed by other tests was not
being followed here. I implemented the pattern and shared my fix with
Raghavendra ... this code builds locally OK for me, but I *haven't run the test*
to confirm it actually works.

[jdduke (slow), 2014-08-22 15:09:12]

On 2014/08/22 15:06:17, picksi1 wrote:
> AFAIK LGTM!
> 
> I looked into this while on Sheriff duty and noticed that the call to
> super.setUp() and the 'throws Exception' pattern followed by other tests was
not
> being followed here. I implemented the pattern and shared my fix with
> Raghavendra ... this code builds locally OK for me, but I *haven't run the
test*
> to confirm it actually works.

Ah, yeah that makes sense. rvg: Please update the description and I'll approve.

[raghu, 2014-08-22 15:21:17]

On 2014/08/22 15:09:12, jdduke wrote:
> On 2014/08/22 15:06:17, picksi1 wrote:
> > AFAIK LGTM!
> > 
> > I looked into this while on Sheriff duty and noticed that the call to
> > super.setUp() and the 'throws Exception' pattern followed by other tests was
> not
> > being followed here. I implemented the pattern and shared my fix with
> > Raghavendra ... this code builds locally OK for me, but I *haven't run the
> test*
> > to confirm it actually works.
> 
> Ah, yeah that makes sense. rvg: Please update the description and I'll
approve.

Thanks,
I have updated the description and also I verified that it is fixed this patch.

[jdduke (slow), 2014-08-22 15:29:19]

On 2014/08/22 15:21:17, rvg wrote:
> On 2014/08/22 15:09:12, jdduke wrote:
> > On 2014/08/22 15:06:17, picksi1 wrote:
> > > AFAIK LGTM!
> > > 
> > > I looked into this while on Sheriff duty and noticed that the call to
> > > super.setUp() and the 'throws Exception' pattern followed by other tests
was
> > not
> > > being followed here. I implemented the pattern and shared my fix with
> > > Raghavendra ... this code builds locally OK for me, but I *haven't run the
> > test*
> > > to confirm it actually works.
> > 
> > Ah, yeah that makes sense. rvg: Please update the description and I'll
> approve.
> 
> Thanks,
> I have updated the description and also I verified that it is fixed this
patch.

Thanks, I trimmed the description as the complete findbugs warning is a little
noisy. lgtm.

[raghu, 2014-08-22 15:35:29]

The CQ bit was checked by r.ghatage@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 15:36:59]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/r.ghatage@samsung.com/497753003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-22 16:36:16]

Committed patchset #1 (1) as 291430