Update mojo sdk to rev cc531b32182099a5a034a99daff35ed5d38a61c8

Update mojo sdk to rev cc531b32182099a5a034a99daff35ed5d38a61c8

BUG=none
R=jamesr@chromium.org
TBR=jbudorick@chromium.org, thestig@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/0934dff0ed3de5b15deb676d6b6e2fa8c0cbe828

[dcheng, 2014-12-29 23:30:42]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jamesr@chromium.org

[dcheng, 2014-12-29 23:30:43]

Hopefully, I did this right. PS#1 is the initial patch created by the script;
subsequent patch sets fix various compile errors. Some feedback on the process
of rolling Mojo:

1) It looks like some things are mirrored in Chrome and Mojo, but the script for
rolling mojo in Chrome doesn't copy them over. I hit this issue in mojo/android,
mojo/cc, and probably a few other places.

2) It’s unfortunate that the build files don’t seem to be mirrored either (or at
least some of the tests DEPS in //mojo/BUILD.gn)

3) I have to use --bypass-hooks to upload because the ==== in one of the READMEs
triggers the presubmit check for version control markers.

[jamesr, 2014-12-29 23:34:57]

Thanks, I'll take a look.  A few replies below.

On 2014/12/29 23:30:43, dcheng wrote:
> Hopefully, I did this right. PS#1 is the initial patch created by the script;
> subsequent patch sets fix various compile errors. Some feedback on the process
> of rolling Mojo:
> 
> 1) It looks like some things are mirrored in Chrome and Mojo, but the script
for
> rolling mojo in Chrome doesn't copy them over. I hit this issue in
mojo/android,
> mojo/cc, and probably a few other places.

These directories are not mirrored, they are forked and diverge.

> 
> 2) It’s unfortunate that the build files don’t seem to be mirrored either
(or at
> least some of the tests DEPS in //mojo/BUILD.gn)

The build files for things that are mirrored are mirrored.

> 
> 3) I have to use --bypass-hooks to upload because the ==== in one of the
READMEs
> triggers the presubmit check for version control markers.

Hmm - maybe the presubmit should be smarter

[jamesr, 2014-12-29 23:39:48]

https://codereview.chromium.org/795593004/diff/60001/mojo/BUILD.gn
File mojo/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/795593004/diff/60001/mojo/BUILD.gn#newcode35
mojo/BUILD.gn:35: "//mojo/public/cpp/utility/tests",
just delete these two lines.  These are source_sets which don't (by themselves)
build anything interesting. The interesting target is
//mojo/edk/test:mojo_public_system_unittests.  You should add this target to the
deps entry for this target and the others in //mojo/edk/test:mojo_public_*

[jamesr, 2014-12-30 00:43:40]

lgtm

[dcheng, 2014-12-30 00:46:10]

Blah, there's some extension tests for the serial API that are mysteriously
failing after this patch.

Investigating and hoping that it won't require any more mojo-side changes.

[dcheng, 2014-12-30 21:54:31]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jbudorick@chromium.org, thestig@chromium.org

[dcheng, 2014-12-30 21:54:33]

PTAL. Theoretically, in the absence of any other blockers, this should be the
final patch.

The main changes since the last reviews are pulling in new Mojo revisions for
various Win compile issues, as well as some findbugs suppressions and a
checklicenses exception for mojo/public/third_party/ply.

[jamesr, 2014-12-30 21:59:20]

still lgtm

we should reorganize the mojo/android code soon, the state it's in doesn't make
a ton of sense

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-30 22:34:29]

Patchset 8 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/0934dff0ed3de5b15deb676d6b6e2fa8c0cbe828
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#309785}

[dcheng, 2014-12-30 22:34:33]

Committed patchset #8 (id:140001) manually as
0934dff0ed3de5b15deb676d6b6e2fa8c0cbe828.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-01-05 19:54:53]

On 2014/12/30 21:54:33, dcheng wrote:
> PTAL. Theoretically, in the absence of any other blockers, this should be the
> final patch.
> 
> The main changes since the last reviews are pulling in new Mojo revisions for
> various Win compile issues, as well as some findbugs suppressions and a
> checklicenses exception for mojo/public/third_party/ply.

I added a license to mojo/public/third_party/ply so we don't need the
checklicenses exception. Does this mean I need to fix this in mojo's repo, so it
does not get removed in the next mojo sdk update?

[dcheng, 2015-01-05 21:06:03]

On 2015/01/05 at 19:54:53, thestig wrote:
> On 2014/12/30 21:54:33, dcheng wrote:
> > PTAL. Theoretically, in the absence of any other blockers, this should be
the
> > final patch.
> > 
> > The main changes since the last reviews are pulling in new Mojo revisions
for
> > various Win compile issues, as well as some findbugs suppressions and a
> > checklicenses exception for mojo/public/third_party/ply.
> 
> I added a license to mojo/public/third_party/ply so we don't need the
checklicenses exception. Does this mean I need to fix this in mojo's repo, so it
does not get removed in the next mojo sdk update?

Yes, I think we'd need to upstream the patch to Mojo so the next roll doesn't
blow it away.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-01-05 21:27:37]

On 2015/01/05 21:06:03, dcheng wrote:
> Yes, I think we'd need to upstream the patch to Mojo so the next roll doesn't
> blow it away.

Ok, will do.