Add support for cc_perftests and other non-telemetry gtest based tests.

Add support for cc_perftests and other non-telemetry gtest based tests.

Switch to recipes a while back dropped these. This CL uses the new src-side API to re-enable them by specifying a test_spec_file at src/testing/buildbot/chromium.perf.json which defines the gtests to run.

Needs to land first: https://codereview.chromium.org/890653002/

Note: The android tests won't be sharded, that probably needs to be done in a separate CL.
Note: I don't have a windows/mac machine so I couldn't test those configs.

http://simonhatch0.mon.corp.google.com:8013/builders/Linux%20Perf%20%281%29/builds/118
http://simonhatch0.mon.corp.google.com:8013/builders/Android%20Nexus7v2%20Perf/builds/309

BUG=392620
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=294245

[shatch, 2015-01-26 20:20:04]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[shatch, 2015-01-26 20:21:25]

simonhatch@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kbr@chromium.org, stip@chromium.org

[shatch, 2015-01-26 20:24:13]

ptal, went with kbr's suggestion from 392620 and defined a chromium.perf.json
file with bot-by-bot tests.

[Ken Russell (switch to Gerrit), 2015-01-26 23:43:11]

kbr@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ iannucci@chromium.org, phajdan.jr@chromium.org

[Ken Russell (switch to Gerrit), 2015-01-26 23:43:11]

Great. Thanks for picking this up.

I'm not the best reviewer for this change. CC'ing phajdan.jr and iannucci. They
can suggest others.

You should figure out some way to write recipe simulation tests for this change.
Have you tried the presubmit checks? I suspect they might fail.

[shatch, 2015-01-27 00:28:41]

On 2015/01/26 23:43:11, Ken Russell wrote:
> Great. Thanks for picking this up.
> 
> I'm not the best reviewer for this change. CC'ing phajdan.jr and iannucci.
They
> can suggest others.
> 
> You should figure out some way to write recipe simulation tests for this
change.
> Have you tried the presubmit checks? I suspect they might fail.

Added an extra test for a failing gtest, but I can add more. Made sure it passes
coverage but I didn't want to train and include the results since that would
make this CL a lot bigger, can do that once it's ready to go.

[ghost stip (do not use), 2015-01-27 01:02:02]

this generally looks OK, I just have a question regarding your inline python
script

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/873403002/diff/20001/scripts/slave/rec...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/873403002/diff/20001/scripts/slave/rec...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py:640: path_to_json =
self.m.path['checkout'].join(
why not just use self.m.json.read() here?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/873403002/diff/20001/scripts/slave/rec...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium_android/api.py (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/873403002/diff/20001/scripts/slave/rec...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium_android/api.py:478: test_suite =
str(test_data['cmd'])  # un-unicode
nit: # Comments are a capitalized statement ending in a period.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-01-27 15:16:41]

"not lgtm"

I'm open to further discussion, but for now I'd strongly prefer to avoid adding
_yet another_ way to dynamically add tests.

The new way is
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1C5fIYVYqMRC0aYtBndAJN6pSiCzQ...
and several tests are already using it - please see src/testing/scripts .

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'd be happy to help
you figure out the src-side API, and make sure it can support your use cases.

I think it's better to start with the new way, rather than do a conversion
later, or live with N different APIs.

[shatch, 2015-01-27 15:23:26]

On 2015/01/27 15:16:41, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> "not lgtm"
> 
> I'm open to further discussion, but for now I'd strongly prefer to avoid
adding
> _yet another_ way to dynamically add tests.
> 
> The new way is
>
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1C5fIYVYqMRC0aYtBndAJN6pSiCzQ...
> and several tests are already using it - please see src/testing/scripts .
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'd be happy to help
> you figure out the src-side API, and make sure it can support your use cases.
> 
> I think it's better to start with the new way, rather than do a conversion
> later, or live with N different APIs.

Fair enough, I'll check out the doc and update this CL with the new way. Mind if
I ping you offline for some guidance?

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-01-27 16:50:19]

On 2015/01/27 15:23:26, shatch wrote:
> Fair enough, I'll check out the doc and update this CL with the new way. Mind
if
> I ping you offline for some guidance?

Feel free to ping me, I'll be happy to help you. Let me know if you'd prefer a
VC.

[shatch, 2015-01-29 20:19:11]

Patchset #2 (id:40001) has been deleted

[shatch, 2015-01-29 20:26:17]

ptal, switch to src-side api.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/60001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/60001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py:716: # Optional properties
We talked a bit about this over email, mostly needed for perf-id to trickle down
to the test, wdyt.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/60001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
File scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/60001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py:139: test_spec_file =
builder.get('testing', {}).get('test_spec_file',
Not entirely clear why builders are specified both here and in chromium_perf.py.
Kind of just went with specifying the spec file here, rather than in the other
file and going through api.chromium.builders to get it.

[iannucci, 2015-01-30 01:23:42]

iannucci@chromium.org changed reviewers:
- iannucci@chromium.org

[iannucci, 2015-01-30 01:23:42]

deferring to phajdan here

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-01-30 21:20:30]

Thanks. Even though I'll be OOO next week, I'll _try_ to do another round of
review.

I strongly recommend you wait for my review, as things this CL is touching are
very important API, that I'd rather keep in very good shape, rather than e.g.
have to urgently fix it myself before people start coding against it.

Still, please just use your best judgment here.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py:717: for name, value in
bot_config.get('optional_properties', {}).iteritems():
I think allowing per-builder optional properties would be an overkill. Why not
just list them here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
File scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py:33: 'test_spec_file':
'chromium.perf.json',
This should not be under testing. It's "testing the recipe", not "testing the
CLs on waterfall".

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/runtest.py
File scripts/slave/runtest.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/runtest.py...
scripts/slave/runtest.py:218: if options.gtest_output_file:
Let's call the option log_processor_output_file.

[shatch, 2015-01-30 21:28:40]

Unless the GPU guys are in a rush, this can probably wait so that we don't muck
up the new src-side api. Appreciate that you may review next week.

On 2015/01/30 21:20:30, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Thanks. Even though I'll be OOO next week, I'll _try_ to do another round of
> review.
> 
> I strongly recommend you wait for my review, as things this CL is touching are
> very important API, that I'd rather keep in very good shape, rather than e.g.
> have to urgently fix it myself before people start coding against it.
> 
> Still, please just use your best judgment here.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
> File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
> scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py:717: for name, value in
> bot_config.get('optional_properties', {}).iteritems():
> I think allowing per-builder optional properties would be an overkill. Why not
> just list them here?
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
> File scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
> scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py:33: 'test_spec_file':
> 'chromium.perf.json',
> This should not be under testing. It's "testing the recipe", not "testing the
> CLs on waterfall".
> 

Can you elaborate a bit more on this point? I'm not clear what you mean.


> https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/runtest.py
> File scripts/slave/runtest.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/runtest.py...
> scripts/slave/runtest.py:218: if options.gtest_output_file:
> Let's call the option log_processor_output_file.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-02-09 09:39:35]

I've returned from vacation but I'm sick.

Unfortunately, I don't see my comments on
https://codereview.chromium.org/890653002/ being addressed.

The 'testing' dictionary key should only contain values that are used during
testing/training recipe expectations, as opposed to values to be used during
actual execution of the recipe.

Please just move test_spec_file at least one level up.

[shatch, 2015-02-09 21:23:59]

Sorry, put this aside since you were OOO last week. Comments addressed, ptal.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipe_mod...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py:717: for name, value in
bot_config.get('optional_properties', {}).iteritems():
On 2015/01/30 21:20:30, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> I think allowing per-builder optional properties would be an overkill. Why not
> just list them here?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
File scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/recipes/an...
scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py:33: 'test_spec_file':
'chromium.perf.json',
On 2015/01/30 21:20:30, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> This should not be under testing. It's "testing the recipe", not "testing the
> CLs on waterfall".

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/runtest.py
File scripts/slave/runtest.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/80001/scripts/slave/runtest.py...
scripts/slave/runtest.py:218: if options.gtest_output_file:
On 2015/01/30 21:20:30, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> Let's call the option log_processor_output_file.

Done.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-02-11 08:24:03]

Cool, this is pretty close now, just some remaining comments.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:119: target_name = self._name
This is not target name, but test/step name. Real target names come from the
script.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:121: target_name += '_apk'
Similarly, this logic does not belong here. Just remove it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:123: return
[string.Template(s).safe_substitute({'name': target_name})
Did you run this locally? I'd expect a NameError for string since it doesn't
seem to be imported.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipes/a...
File scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipes/a...
scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py:128: test_spec_path =
api.path['checkout'].join('testing', 'buildbot',
This seems to be duplicating already existing code. How about extracting a
helper to common module?

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/runtest.py
File scripts/slave/runtest.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/runtest.p...
scripts/slave/runtest.py:204: log_processors = {}
Could you extract the runtest.py change to a separate CL? Then we could limit
the scope of reverts if things go wrong, and particularly the runtest.py change
seems risky.

[shatch, 2015-02-12 20:46:32]

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:119: target_name = self._name
On 2015/02/11 08:24:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> This is not target name, but test/step name. Real target names come from the
> script.

Ok, checked for script args and take the target name from the script instead.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:121: target_name += '_apk'
On 2015/02/11 08:24:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> Similarly, this logic does not belong here. Just remove it.

Made a change in the other CL to add the _apk.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:123: return
[string.Template(s).safe_substitute({'name': target_name})
On 2015/02/11 08:24:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> Did you run this locally? I'd expect a NameError for string since it doesn't
> seem to be imported.

Oops, not sure how I lost that.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipes/a...
File scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/recipes/a...
scripts/slave/recipes/android/perf.py:128: test_spec_path =
api.path['checkout'].join('testing', 'buildbot',
On 2015/02/11 08:24:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> This seems to be duplicating already existing code. How about extracting a
> helper to common module?

Moved this into chromium_tests, since there's already code in there to read the
spec file and generate tests. Please tell me if there's a more appropriate spot.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/runtest.py
File scripts/slave/runtest.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/120001/scripts/slave/runtest.p...
scripts/slave/runtest.py:204: log_processors = {}
On 2015/02/11 08:24:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. (OOO) wrote:
> Could you extract the runtest.py change to a separate CL? Then we could limit
> the scope of reverts if things go wrong, and particularly the runtest.py
change
> seems risky.

Done.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-02-20 09:29:59]

phajdan.jr@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ iannucci@chromium.org

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-02-20 09:30:00]

Looks good to me with a small change, also +Robbie.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py:24: 'test_spec_file':
'chromium.perf.json',
Move this out of the "testing" dict.

[iannucci, 2015-02-23 18:11:39]

On 2015/02/20 09:30:00, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Looks good to me with a small change, also +Robbie.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
> File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
> scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py:24: 'test_spec_file':
> 'chromium.perf.json',
> Move this out of the "testing" dict.

this looks fine to me, but was there something you wanted me to look at in
particular? I though I'd let you handle this Pawel (which is why I wrote
"deferring to phajdan here" and removed myself from the reviewer list :))

[iannucci, 2015-02-23 18:13:14]

On 2015/02/23 18:11:39, iannucci wrote:
> On 2015/02/20 09:30:00, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > Looks good to me with a small change, also +Robbie.
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
> > File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
> > scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py:24: 'test_spec_file':
> > 'chromium.perf.json',
> > Move this out of the "testing" dict.
> 
> this looks fine to me, but was there something you wanted me to look at in
> particular? I though I'd let you handle this Pawel (which is why I wrote
> "deferring to phajdan here" and removed myself from the reviewer list :))

well... in general I feel like the encapsulation of functionality in these
modules is a bit lacking, but that's not an artifact of this patch. It probably
deserves some cleanup.

[shatch, 2015-02-23 18:56:12]

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py:24: 'test_spec_file':
'chromium.perf.json',
On 2015/02/20 09:30:00, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Move this out of the "testing" dict.

Done.

[shatch, 2015-02-23 18:57:26]

On 2015/02/23 18:11:39, iannucci wrote:
> On 2015/02/20 09:30:00, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > Looks good to me with a small change, also +Robbie.
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
> > File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
> > scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py:24: 'test_spec_file':
> > 'chromium.perf.json',
> > Move this out of the "testing" dict.
> 
> this looks fine to me, but was there something you wanted me to look at in
> particular? I though I'd let you handle this Pawel (which is why I wrote
> "deferring to phajdan here" and removed myself from the reviewer list :))

With the +Robbie, I just assumed Pawel wanted you to take look so I forwarded
you both CL's.

[iannucci, 2015-02-23 19:46:00]

Ah yeah, I was asking Pawel :)

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 10:57 null <simonhatch@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2015/02/23 18:11:39, iannucci wrote:
> > On 2015/02/20 09:30:00, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > > Looks good to me with a small change, also +Robbie.
> > >
> > >
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/
> scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py
> > > File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py (right):
> > >
> > >
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/160001/
> scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py#newcode24
> > >
> > scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/chromium_perf.py:24:
> 'test_spec_file':
> > > 'chromium.perf.json',
> > > Move this out of the "testing" dict.
>
> > this looks fine to me, but was there something you wanted me to look at
> in
> > particular? I though I'd let you handle this Pawel (which is why I wrote
> > "deferring to phajdan here" and removed myself from the reviewer list :))
>
> With the +Robbie, I just assumed Pawel wanted you to take look so I
> forwarded
> you both CL's.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-02-23 20:44:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py:721: properties['android_mode'] =
self.c.TARGET_PLATFORM == 'android'
Why not pass the value of TARGET_PLATFORM instead?

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:122: substitions = {'name':
self._script_args[0]}
This is confusing - why is this conditional on self._script_args, and why it
uses script_args[0] as opposed to e.g. self._name?

[shatch, 2015-02-23 21:05:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/api.py:721: properties['android_mode'] =
self.c.TARGET_PLATFORM == 'android'
On 2015/02/23 20:44:18, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Why not pass the value of TARGET_PLATFORM instead?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/200001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:122: substitions = {'name':
self._script_args[0]}
On 2015/02/23 20:44:18, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> This is confusing - why is this conditional on self._script_args, and why it
> uses script_args[0] as opposed to e.g. self._name?

Added a conditional since not every script passes script args. I'm a bit
confused as well, didn't you comment earlier on self._name being the test/step
name when I was using that?

[Ken Russell (switch to Gerrit), 2015-02-25 19:07:24]

Could we please try to resolve the concerns with this CL soon and get it and its
dependency landed ASAP? We need to turn on several non-Telemetry perf tests
soon. Thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/220001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/220001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:120: substitions = {}
typo: substitions / substitutions

[shatch, 2015-02-25 19:21:11]

Will reach out to iannucci and phajdan to discuss and try to move this along.

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/220001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
File scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/diff/220001/scripts/slave/recipe_mo...
scripts/slave/recipe_modules/chromium/steps.py:120: substitions = {}
On 2015/02/25 19:07:24, Ken Russell wrote:
> typo: substitions / substitutions

Done.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-02-25 20:32:18]

Patchset 12 LGTM.

[shatch, 2015-02-25 20:56:18]

On 2015/02/25 20:32:18, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Patchset 12 LGTM.

I'll land this after hours and monitor tonight to make sure nothing breaks.

[shatch, 2015-02-26 00:58:19]

The CQ bit was checked by simonhatch@chromium.org

[shatch, 2015-02-26 00:58:20]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
phajdan.jr@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/#ps280001
(title: "Update expectations.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-26 00:58:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/873403002/280001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-26 01:00:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-26 01:00:18]

Failed to apply patch for
build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json:
While running patch -p1 --forward --force --no-backup-if-mismatch;
  can't find file to patch at input line 6
  Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
  The text leading up to this was:
  --------------------------
  |Index:
scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
  |diff --git
a/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
b/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
  |index
a0c6514abcd83794e9a28e0caac1941ee83f9b01..e7037e286a2592650f693a4bbf41066df9e5e7da
100644
  |---
a/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
  |+++
b/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
  --------------------------
  No file to patch.  Skipping patch.
  1 out of 1 hunk ignored

Patch:      
build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
Index: scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
diff --git
a/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
b/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
index
a0c6514abcd83794e9a28e0caac1941ee83f9b01..e7037e286a2592650f693a4bbf41066df9e5e7da
100644
---
a/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
+++
b/build/scripts/slave/recipes/chromium.expected/full_chromium_mac_iOS_Device.json
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
       "--paths",
       "{\"build\": \"[BUILD]\", \"checkout\": \"[SLAVE_BUILD]/src\"}",
       "--properties",
-      "{\"buildername\": \"iOS Device\", \"buildnumber\": 571, \"slavename\":
\"TestSlavename\"}"
+      "{\"buildername\": \"iOS Device\", \"buildnumber\": 571, \"mastername\":
\"chromium.mac\", \"slavename\": \"TestSlavename\", \"target_platform\":
\"ios\"}"
     ],
     "name": "get compile targets for scripts",
     "~followup_annotations": [

[shatch, 2015-02-26 15:14:15]

Patchset #14 (id:300001) has been deleted

[shatch, 2015-02-26 15:14:56]

The CQ bit was checked by simonhatch@chromium.org

[shatch, 2015-02-26 15:14:58]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
phajdan.jr@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/873403002/#ps320001
(title: "Rebase again + coverage.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-26 15:16:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/873403002/320001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-26 15:22:48]

Committed patchset #14 (id:320001) as
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=294245