Add Chrome IME extensions to the whitelisted extensions for app.window.alpha

Add Chrome IME extensions to the whitelisted extensions for app.window.alpha

This allows ime extensions creat window with proper shadow through css and a round button as in this mock:
https://folio.googleplex.com/chromeinput/final/voice#%2F00%20VK_start%20to%20speak.png

BUG=425539
Committed: https://crrev.com/a49d7ed44c5993dc850ab2da08e3b253f7889b7c
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#300697}

[bshe, 2014-10-20 17:01:55]

bshe@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ benwells@chromium.org

[bshe, 2014-10-20 17:01:55]

Hello Ben.

Do you mind to take a look at this CL? I know that app.window.alpha is still in
dev channel and for app only. But our IME extensions have some features which
would benefit from the alpha API a lot. For instance, we want to implement a
round button for speech input, see mock here:
https://folio.googleplex.com/chromeinput/final/voice#%2F09Keyboard_nice%20to%...

It would be easy to implement with alpha but would be significantly harder to
implement it otherwise. So I propose to add IME extensions to the whitelist of
app.window.alpha API. Do you have any concern or suggestion? Thanks!

Biao

[benwells, 2014-10-21 04:58:19]

On 2014/10/20 17:01:55, bshe wrote:
> Hello Ben.
> 
> Do you mind to take a look at this CL? I know that app.window.alpha is still
in
> dev channel and for app only. But our IME extensions have some features which
> would benefit from the alpha API a lot. For instance, we want to implement a
> round button for speech input, see mock here:
>
https://folio.googleplex.com/chromeinput/final/voice#%2F09Keyboard_nice%20to%...
> 
> It would be easy to implement with alpha but would be significantly harder to
> implement it otherwise. So I propose to add IME extensions to the whitelist of
> app.window.alpha API. Do you have any concern or suggestion? Thanks!
> 
> Biao

Could you add a bug for this, and add a link to the bug in the whitelist?

[benwells, 2014-10-21 05:01:29]

On 2014/10/21 04:58:19, benwells wrote:
> On 2014/10/20 17:01:55, bshe wrote:
> > Hello Ben.
> > 
> > Do you mind to take a look at this CL? I know that app.window.alpha is still
> in
> > dev channel and for app only. But our IME extensions have some features
which
> > would benefit from the alpha API a lot. For instance, we want to implement a
> > round button for speech input, see mock here:
> >
>
https://folio.googleplex.com/chromeinput/final/voice#%2F09Keyboard_nice%20to%...
> > 
> > It would be easy to implement with alpha but would be significantly harder
to
> > implement it otherwise. So I propose to add IME extensions to the whitelist
of
> > app.window.alpha API. Do you have any concern or suggestion? Thanks!
> > 
> > Biao
> 
> Could you add a bug for this, and add a link to the bug in the whitelist?

Also, how come there are three manifests being changed but only two ids being
added to the whitelist?

[bshe, 2014-10-21 14:28:43]

On 2014/10/21 05:01:29, benwells wrote:
> On 2014/10/21 04:58:19, benwells wrote:
> > On 2014/10/20 17:01:55, bshe wrote:
> > > Hello Ben.
> > > 
> > > Do you mind to take a look at this CL? I know that app.window.alpha is
still
> > in
> > > dev channel and for app only. But our IME extensions have some features
> which
> > > would benefit from the alpha API a lot. For instance, we want to implement
a
> > > round button for speech input, see mock here:
> > >
> >
>
https://folio.googleplex.com/chromeinput/final/voice#%2F09Keyboard_nice%20to%...
> > > 
> > > It would be easy to implement with alpha but would be significantly harder
> to
> > > implement it otherwise. So I propose to add IME extensions to the
whitelist
> of
> > > app.window.alpha API. Do you have any concern or suggestion? Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Biao
> > 
> > Could you add a bug for this, and add a link to the bug in the whitelist?
> 
> Also, how come there are three manifests being changed but only two ids being
> added to the whitelist?

Thanks for your review!
I have created a bug and reference to it both in the code and in the CL
description.
Good catch on the manifest file. The change in google_input_tools_manifest.json
is
unnecessary at this moment. I forgot to remove it after my local test.
Do you mind to take another look? Thanks!

[benwells, 2014-10-22 09:22:13]

lgtm

[bshe, 2014-10-22 13:46:33]

The CQ bit was checked by bshe@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 13:47:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/643283002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 13:51:26]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 13:51:27]

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

[bshe, 2014-10-22 13:54:17]

bshe@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ shuchen@chromium.org

[bshe, 2014-10-22 13:54:39]

+shuchen for manifest files

Thanks!

[Shu Chen, 2014-10-22 15:18:38]

lgtm for ime manifests.

[bshe, 2014-10-22 15:45:19]

The CQ bit was checked by bshe@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 15:46:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/643283002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 17:42:01]

Committed patchset #3 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 17:42:50]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/a49d7ed44c5993dc850ab2da08e3b253f7889b7c
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#300697}