Polymer elements added to third_party/polymer.

Polymer elements added to third_party/polymer.

List of changes:
* Added all core-elements and paper-elements provided by Polymer.
* Components moved to 'components' subdirectory.
* Added a presubmit check verifying that the list of dependencies from
  bower.json and the list of components installed to 'components' are the same.
  (see README.chromium for details).
* Updated README.chromium
* Updated pathes to polymer.js and platform.js in projects that use them.

web-animations-js library will be added to the repository
later. Here is a list of components depending on web-animations-js:
* core-animation/core-animation-group.html
* core-animation/core-animation.html
* core-animation/web-animations.html
* paper-menu-button/paper-menu-button.html
* paper-menu-button/paper-menu-button-transition.html

This CL doesn't change polymer and platform components.

Landed manually, because of the bug in the commit queue (http://crbug.com/416255).

BUG=415696
R=mtomasz@chromium.org, raymes@chromium.org, rsadam@chromium.org, thestig@chromium.org
TBR=cpu

Committed: https://crrev.com/344b7eb4fc9f09c744d3619167ec8fa3d89deb2f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#296712}

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-18 19:56:07]

dzhioev@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ mtomasz@chromium.org, raymes@chromium.org, thestig@chromium.org

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-18 19:56:13]

Hi please review:
raymes@ for third_party/polymer and chrome/browser/resources/pdf/
thestig@ for checkperms.py
mtomasz@ for ui/file_manager

[Lei Zhang, 2014-09-18 20:44:58]

On 2014/09/18 19:56:13, dzhioev wrote:
> Hi please review:
> raymes@ for third_party/polymer and chrome/browser/resources/pdf/
> thestig@ for checkperms.py
> mtomasz@ for ui/file_manager

What specifically are you failing with checkperms.py? Can you just fix the
failure?

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-18 21:32:24]

On 2014/09/18 20:44:58, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2014/09/18 19:56:13, dzhioev wrote:
> > Hi please review:
> > raymes@ for third_party/polymer and chrome/browser/resources/pdf/
> > thestig@ for checkperms.py
> > mtomasz@ for ui/file_manager
> 
> What specifically are you failing with checkperms.py? Can you just fix the
> failure?

Several "Must not have executable bit set" and "Has executable bit but not
shebang or ELF header" errors
in 'components/core-list' and 'components/web-animations-js'. It is not hard to
fix them
by removing executable bit. But I don't know if it is a good idea to change
third_party files.
If we do it, that also should be done every time we update to the newer version,
until the error
is fixed in a upstream. Do you know what policy do we have regarding the
subject?

[Lei Zhang, 2014-09-18 21:37:29]

On 2014/09/18 21:32:24, dzhioev wrote:
> On 2014/09/18 20:44:58, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > On 2014/09/18 19:56:13, dzhioev wrote:
> > > Hi please review:
> > > raymes@ for third_party/polymer and chrome/browser/resources/pdf/
> > > thestig@ for checkperms.py
> > > mtomasz@ for ui/file_manager
> > 
> > What specifically are you failing with checkperms.py? Can you just fix the
> > failure?
> 
> Several "Must not have executable bit set" and "Has executable bit but not
> shebang or ELF header" errors
> in 'components/core-list' and 'components/web-animations-js'. It is not hard
to
> fix them
> by removing executable bit. But I don't know if it is a good idea to change
> third_party files.
> If we do it, that also should be done every time we update to the newer
version,
> until the error
> is fixed in a upstream. Do you know what policy do we have regarding the
> subject?

Can you be a bit more specific on which files? For example, .css and .js files
should not have the executable bit set. Depending on the situation, you may want
to push upstream to fix their file permissions.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-18 21:38:45]

dzhioev@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rsadam@chromium.org

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-18 21:38:48]

Adding rsadam@, who has upgraded Polymer several times before.

[Lei Zhang, 2014-09-18 21:41:49]

I can't git clone web-animations-js without authentication. For core-list, none
of the files should have the executable bit set.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-18 22:02:51]

On 2014/09/18 21:41:49, Lei Zhang wrote:
> I can't git clone web-animations-js without authentication.
Strange, git clone "https://github.com/web-animations/web-animations-js" works
for me without auth.
The problems there:
* One 'html' file was wrongly marked as executable. I'll fix it.
* Several 'sh' files has '#! /bin/bash' header. checkperms claims that these
files have no shebang, because it doesn't expect space between a shebang and a
binary name.
> For core-list, none
> of the files should have the executable bit set.
OK, I'll fix it.

[Lei Zhang, 2014-09-18 22:16:57]

On 2014/09/18 22:02:51, dzhioev wrote:
> * Several 'sh' files has '#! /bin/bash' header. checkperms claims that these
> files have no shebang, because it doesn't expect space between a shebang and a
> binary name.

I'll fix that in checkperms. It's uncommon to have the space, but not wrong.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-18 22:39:12]

On 2014/09/18 22:16:57, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2014/09/18 22:02:51, dzhioev wrote:
> > * Several 'sh' files has '#! /bin/bash' header. checkperms claims that these
> > files have no shebang, because it doesn't expect space between a shebang and
a
> > binary name.
> 
> I'll fix that in checkperms. It's uncommon to have the space, but not wrong.

Should I leave 'third_party/polymer' in the list or just ignore checkperms for
this time?

[raymes, 2014-09-18 22:44:05]

On 2014/09/18 22:16:57, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2014/09/18 22:02:51, dzhioev wrote:
> > * Several 'sh' files has '#! /bin/bash' header. checkperms claims that these
> > files have no shebang, because it doesn't expect space between a shebang and
a
> > binary name.
> 
> I'll fix that in checkperms. It's uncommon to have the space, but not wrong.

lgtm but defer to thestig@'s concerns.

[Lei Zhang, 2014-09-18 22:52:54]

On 2014/09/18 22:39:12, dzhioev wrote:
> Should I leave 'third_party/polymer' in the list or just ignore checkperms for
> this time?

If you are not in a rush, then let's fix the checkperms issues. I sent you a CL
BTW.

If you are in a rush, then please file a bug for removing the
third_party/polymer entry from checkperms.py and reference the bug # in
checkperms.py.

[rsadam, 2014-09-18 23:12:03]

third_party/polymer lgtm

[mtomasz, 2014-09-19 00:21:06]

On 2014/09/18 23:12:03, rsadam wrote:
> third_party/polymer lgtm

lgtm for ui/file_manager.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-19 02:15:49]

On 2014/09/18 22:52:54, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2014/09/18 22:39:12, dzhioev wrote:
> > Should I leave 'third_party/polymer' in the list or just ignore checkperms
for
> > this time?
> 
> If you are not in a rush, then let's fix the checkperms issues. I sent you a
CL
> BTW.
> 
> If you are in a rush, then please file a bug for removing the
> third_party/polymer entry from checkperms.py and reference the bug # in
> checkperms.py.

It's not urgent, I'll wait till your CL lands.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-20 18:30:12]

I fixed wrong permissions for several files. With the new version of
'checkperms' (after https://codereview.chromium.org/587463002/) we don't need to
have 'third_party/polymer' in the 'checkperms' whitelist anymore.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-20 18:31:34]

The CQ bit was checked by dzhioev@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-20 18:32:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/582873003/10001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-20 18:50:39]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-20 18:50:43]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios_rel_device on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_rel_device/bu...)

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-20 21:43:57]

Committed patchset #2 (id:10001) manually as 7c33f44 (presubmit successful).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-20 21:44:01]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/7c33f44244bcafb889a0cc9e0aafe08141c28109
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#295892}

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-21 21:01:30]

The CL was reverted because several files in web-animations-js don't have a
license header (https://codereview.chromium.org/592603004/). I've added
web-animations-js to the whitelist of checklicenses.py and created an issue in
web-animations-js issue tracker. Lei, could you please take another look.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-22 16:57:25]

On 2014/09/21 21:01:30, dzhioev wrote:
> The CL was reverted because several files in web-animations-js don't have a
> license header (https://codereview.chromium.org/592603004/). I've added
> web-animations-js to the whitelist of checklicenses.py and created an issue in
> web-animations-js issue tracker. Lei, could you please take another look.
The authors of web-components-js don't want to add  a licence header. They
suggested
to remove all unneeded files from Chromium checkout, so I did. Lei review is not
needed anymore.

[raymes, 2014-09-23 00:50:02]

Please see my comments on reproduce.sh on
https://codereview.chromium.org/592593002/. It would still be good to get an lg
from thestig@ on this :)

[Lei Zhang, 2014-09-23 01:02:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/50001/third_party/polymer/repr...
File third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/50001/third_party/polymer/repr...
third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh:9: rm -rf components
Erm, this depends on your CWD. If you're in src/, you just nuked
src/components...

I would make this script do a dry run by default and just print out what it
would delete/chomd. Only carry out the operations if ran with --really-do-this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/50001/third_party/polymer/repr...
third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh:11: find components/web-animations-js/ -type f
\
For each of these find commands, how many files are actually affected. If it's
not too long, perhaps you want to be explicit about it?

Is the output of "bower install" always the same? It's a bit weird that this is
called "reproduce.sh" but I worry this may not always produce the same output.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-23 08:43:01]

reproduce.sh will not be used in build process. It's more like an instruction or
a log of the actions that were made to produce the content of this directory.
Plus it is good for self checking. Running reproduce.sh should not change
anything in your working copy.

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/50001/third_party/polymer/repr...
File third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/50001/third_party/polymer/repr...
third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh:9: rm -rf components
On 2014/09/23 01:02:57, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Erm, this depends on your CWD. If you're in src/, you just nuked
> src/components...
> 
 
Fixed, scripts makes everything in its own directory now.

> I would make this script do a dry run by default and just print out what it
> would delete/chomd. Only carry out the operations if ran with
--really-do-this.

It is not so easy, because actions made by commands depend of results of
previous commands. For example, the command that removes empty directories from
web-animations-js.

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/50001/third_party/polymer/repr...
third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh:11: find components/web-animations-js/ -type f
\
On 2014/09/23 01:02:57, Lei Zhang wrote:
> For each of these find commands, how many files are actually affected. If it's
> not too long, perhaps you want to be explicit about it?
> 
~ 200 files in web-animations-js and 12 files in core-list. I think find
commands is more descriptive, then an explicit list.
 
> Is the output of "bower install" always the same? It's a bit weird that this
is
> called "reproduce.sh" but I worry this may not always produce the same output.
Yes, it is. I've stated exact versions for every package
in bower.json and wrote presubmit script to be sure that we installed only
dependencies listed in bower.json.

[Lei Zhang, 2014-09-23 21:41:51]

reproduce.sh lgtm with the right quoting.

I'm not sure what to do about the README.chromium situation. You'd either fix
licenses.py, or put Web Animation in a separate third_party/ directory with its
own README.chromium.

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/60001/third_party/polymer/READ...
File third_party/polymer/README.chromium (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/60001/third_party/polymer/READ...
third_party/polymer/README.chromium:10: Name: Web Animations JS
This doesn't work. If you remove out/foo/gen/about_credits.html, patch this in
and rebuild it, it doesn't show up. in about:credits.

This comes from tools/licenses.py, which does not deal with multiple entries in
the same README.chromium file.

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/60001/third_party/polymer/repr...
File third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/582873003/diff/60001/third_party/polymer/repr...
third_party/polymer/reproduce.sh:9: cd "$(dirname $0)"
You need to put $0 in quotes as well. Otherwise a path with spaces in it can
mess this up.

[raymes, 2014-09-24 04:09:23]

lgtm

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-25 15:55:47]

I send request for review of 'web-animions-js' to
open-source-third-party-reviews@google.com and security@chromium.org as Chromium
policy requires.
At the same time I realized that I don't need web-animations-js or any
components that depend on it in M39. So I landing this CL without
web-animations-js. I'll add it as soon as it is approved.

[dzhioev (left Google), 2014-09-25 15:59:17]

Committed patchset #9 (id:80001) manually as 344b7eb (presubmit successful).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-25 15:59:18]

Patchset 9 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/344b7eb4fc9f09c744d3619167ec8fa3d89deb2f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#296712}