Remove rendering dependency in GraphicsContextAnnotation

Remove rendering dependency in GraphicsContextAnnotation

BUG=297477
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=161125

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=161178

[rwlbuis, 2013-10-31 20:46:22]

This patch is needed to remove another blocker for moving core/platform/graphics
to platform. Unfortunately I do not know how to test this...

[f(malita), 2013-10-31 22:33:33]

On 2013/10/31 20:46:22, rwlbuis wrote:
> Unfortunately I do not know how to test this...

I patched it in, and looks like annotations are working fine. Will review
shortly.

[rwlbuis, 2013-10-31 22:43:43]

On 2013/10/31 22:33:33, Florin Malita wrote:
> On 2013/10/31 20:46:22, rwlbuis wrote:
> > Unfortunately I do not know how to test this...
> 
> I patched it in, and looks like annotations are working fine. Will review
> shortly.

That's great, thanks!

[f(malita), 2013-10-31 23:36:29]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/55223002/diff/30001/Source/core/platform/grap...
File Source/core/platform/graphics/GraphicsContextAnnotation.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/55223002/diff/30001/Source/core/platform/grap...
Source/core/platform/graphics/GraphicsContextAnnotation.h:54:
GraphicsContextAnnotation(const char*, const char*, const String&, const
String&, const String&);
IIRC, with the original CL there was a lot of attention paid to avoiding extra
string copies (deferring the actual string construction as much as possible).

Looks like now we're building the strings one level higher, and even thought
we're passing by reference there's an extra assignment to the fields. But I
believe that's OK, because WTF::String is just a thin wrapper around a
StringImpl refptr, so copying is shallow and cheap.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-11-01 00:18:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/rob.buis@samsung.com/55223002/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-11-01 03:00:39]

Change committed as 161125

[dglazkov, 2013-11-01 04:24:26]

I am not sure how it happened, but it caused layout test failure:

http://test-results.appspot.com/dashboards/flakiness_dashboard.html#group=%40...

I reverted in r161132.

[Stephen Chennney, 2013-11-01 12:06:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/55223002/diff/30001/Source/core/core.gypi
File Source/core/core.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/55223002/diff/30001/Source/core/core.gypi#new...
Source/core/core.gypi:1365: 'rendering/GraphicsContextAnnotator.cpp',
And before you re-land, add the header file here too.

[f(malita), 2013-11-01 12:55:43]

On 2013/11/01 04:24:26, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> I am not sure how it happened, but it caused layout test failure:
> 
>
http://test-results.appspot.com/dashboards/flakiness_dashboard.html#group=%25...
> 
> I reverted in r161132.

Hmm, one of the builders is lying (non-intersecting blame lists): Linux (dbg)
points its fat finger at r161125/this CL, but Mac10.6 (dbg) thinks its 
r161118-r161123 (others have more inclusive ranges). Luckily, the green ranges
settle it: the fixing revert is not r161132 but
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?revision=161140&view=revision - hence the
culprit was really
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=161123. Frigging
Halloween, I tell ya.

Anyway, I think it's safe to re-land, with Stephen's suggestion.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-11-01 16:01:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/rob.buis@samsung.com/55223002/250001

[rwlbuis, 2013-11-01 16:03:20]

On 2013/11/01 12:55:43, Florin Malita wrote:
> On 2013/11/01 04:24:26, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> > I am not sure how it happened, but it caused layout test failure:
> > 
> >
>
http://test-results.appspot.com/dashboards/flakiness_dashboard.html#group=%25...
> > 
> > I reverted in r161132.
> 
> Hmm, one of the builders is lying (non-intersecting blame lists): Linux (dbg)
> points its fat finger at r161125/this CL, but Mac10.6 (dbg) thinks its 
> r161118-r161123 (others have more inclusive ranges). Luckily, the green ranges
> settle it: the fixing revert is not r161132 but
> http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?revision=161140&view=revision - hence the
> culprit was really
> http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=161123. Frigging
> Halloween, I tell ya.
> 
> Anyway, I think it's safe to re-land, with Stephen's suggestion.

Oh noes :)Anyway I am re-landing it as we speak.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-11-01 17:28:02]

Change committed as 161178