Chromium Docs

//chrome/browser design principles

These design principles make it easier to write, debug, and maintain desktop code in //chrome/browser. Most, but not all code in //chrome/browser is desktop code. Some code is used on Android.

Caveats:

  • These are recommendations, not requirements.
  • These are not intended to be static. If you think a principle doesn't make sense, reach out to //chrome/OWNERS.
  • These are intended to apply to new code and major refactors. We do not expect existing features to be refactored, except as need arises.

Structure, modularity:

  • Features should be modular.
    • For most features, all code should live in some combination of //component/<feature> and //chrome/browser/<feature> (or //chrome/browser/ui/<feature>), and not in //chrome/browser/ui/views.
      • The historical rule restricting access to views in //chrome/browser and //chrome/browser/ui has been removed.
      • The historical rule disallowing ui code in //chrome/browser has been removed.
    • WebUI resources are the only exception. They will continue to live in //chrome/browser/resources/<feature> alongside standalone BUILD.gn files.
    • This directory should have a standalone BUILD.gn and OWNERS file.
    • All files in the directory should belong to targets in the BUILD.gn.
      • Do NOT add to //chrome/browser/BUILD.gn:browser, //chrome/test/BUILD.gn or //chrome/browser/ui/BUILD.gn:ui.
    • gn circular dependencies are disallowed. Logical circular dependencies are allowed (for legacy reasons) but discouraged.
      • cookie controls is an example of a feature with logical circular dependencies.
        • The header files are moved into a “cookie_controls” target with no circular dependencies.
        • The cc files are moved into a “impl” target, with circular dependencies allowed with //chrome/browser:browser and //chrome/browser/ui:ui. These circular dependencies will disappear when all sources are removed from //chrome/browser:browser and //chrome/browser/ui:ui.
        • The separation between header and cc files is functionally equivalent to creating abstract base classes in one target, with h/cc files in a separate target. This just skips the boilerplate of creating the abstract base classes.
        • Even though there are no build circular dependencies, there are still logical circular dependencies from the cc files. This discrepancy is because C++ allows headers to forward declare dependencies, which do not need to be reflected in gn.
      • Lens overlay is an example with almost no circular dependencies.
        • It has a logical circular dependency on //chrome/browser/browser/ui:ui, which will no longer be necessary once NTP is also modularized (crbug.com/382237520).
        • The BUILD.gn should use public/sources separation.
          • The main reason for this is to guard against future, unexpected usage of parts of the code that were intended to be private. This makes it difficult to change implementation details in the future.
          • This directory may have a public/ subdirectory to enforce further encapsulation, though this example does not use it.
    • This directory may have its own namespace.
    • Corollary: There are several global functions that facilitate dependency inversion. It will not be possible to call them from modularized features (no dependency cycles), and their usage in non-modularized features is considered a red flag:
      • chrome::FindBrowserWithTab (and everything in browser_finder.h)
      • GetBrowserViewForNativeWindow (via browser_view.h)
      • FindBrowserWindowWithWebContents (via browser_window.h)
    • Corollary: Don't use Browser*. This is functionally a container of hundreds of other pointers. It is impossible to specify dependencies, since Browser* functionally depends on everything. Instead, pass in the relevant pointers, e.g. Profile*, FooFeatureController, etc.
      • Code that uses Browser* is also impossible to properly unit test.
    • Rationale: Modularity enforces the creation of API surfaces and explicit dependencies. This has several positive externalities:
      • Separation of interface from implementation prevents unnecessarly tight coupling between features. This in turn reduces spooky action at a distance, where seemingly innocuous changes break a distant, supposedly unrelated feature.
      • Explicit listing of circular dependencies exposes the likely fragile areas of code.
      • Alongside the later guidance of global functions must be pure, modularity adds the requirement that test-code perform dependency injection. This eliminates a common bug where test behavior diverges from production behavior, and logic is added to production code to work around test-only behaviors.
// Do not do this:
FooFeature(Browser* browser) : browser_(browser) {}
FooFeature::DoStuff() { DoStuffWith(browser_->profile()->GetPrefs()); }

// Do this:
FooFeature(PrefService* prefs) : prefs_(prefs) {}
FooFeature::DoStuff() { DoStuffWith(prefs_); }
  • Features should have a core controller with precise lifetime semantics. The core controller for most desktop features should be owned and instantiated by one of the following classes:
    • TabFeatures (member of TabModel)
      • This class should own all tab-centric features. e.g. print preview, lens overlay, compose, find-in-page, etc.
        • If the feature requires instantiation of content::WebContentsUserData, it should be done in this class.
      • For desktop chrome, TabHelpers::AttachTabHelpers will become a remove-only method. Clank/WebView may continue to use section 2 of TabHelpers::AttachTabHelpers (Clank/WebView only).
      • More complex features that also target mobile platforms or other supported embedders (e.g. android webview) will continue to use the layered components architecture.
        • We defer to //components/OWNERS for expertise and feedback on the architecture of these features, and encourage feature-owners to proactively reach out to them.
      • Lazy instantiation of content::WebContentsUserData is an anti-pattern.
    • BrowserWindowFeatures (member of Browser)
      • example: omnibox, security chip, bookmarks bar, side panel
    • BrowserContextKeyedServiceFactory (functionally a member of Profile)
      • Override ServiceIsCreatedWithBrowserContext to return true. This guarantees precise lifetime semantics.
      • Lazy instantiation is an anti-pattern.
        • Production code is started via content::ContentMain(). Test harnesses use a test-suite dependent start-point, e.g. base::LaunchUnitTests. Tests typically instantiate a subset of the lazily-instantiated factories instantiated by production code, at a different time, with a different order. This results in different, sometimes broken behavior in tests. This is typically papered over by modifying the production logic to include otherwise unnecessary conditionals, typically early-exits. Overriding ServiceIsCreatedWithBrowserContext guarantees identical behavior between test and production code.
      • Use TestingProfile::Builder::AddTestingFactory to stub or fake services.
      • Separating the .h and .cc file into different build targets is allowed.
        • BrowserContextKeyedServiceFactory combines 3 pieces of functionality:
          • A getter to receive a service based on an instance of Profile.
          • A mechanism to establishing dependencies.
          • A way to glue together //chrome layer logic with //components layer logic.
          • The latter two pieces of functionality are implemented in the .cc file and typically result in dependencies on other parts of //chrome. The first piece of functionality is implemented in the .h file and does not necessarily introduce a dependency on //chrome, since the returned service can be defined in //components.
    • GlobalFeatures.
      • Features which are scoped to the entire process and span multiple Profiles should be members of GlobalFeatures.
      • GlobalFeatures is a member of BrowserProcess and they have similar lifetime semantics. The main difference is that historically BrowserProcess used the antipattern of lazy instantiation, and the setup of TestingBrowserProcess encourages divergence between test logic and production logic. On the other hand, GlobalFeatures is always instantiated.
        • This is not making any statements about initialization (e.g. performing non-trivial setup).
    • The core controller should not be a NoDestructor singleton.
// Properly scoped state avoids categories of bugs and subtle issues. For
// example: one common mistake is to store window-scoped state on a tab-scoped
// object. This results in subtle bugs (or crashes) when tab is dragged into a
// new window.

// Do not do this:
FooTabFeature {
  // As per (1) above, we shouldn't be passing or storing Browser* anyways.
  // Another common anti-pattern is to dynamically look up Browser* via
  // browser_finder methods. These often result in the wrong Browser*
  Browser* browser_;

  // This will point to the wrong BrowserView if the tab is dragged into a new
  // window. Furthermore, BrowserView* itself is a container of hundreds of
  // other views. The tab-scoped feature typically wants something much more
  // specific.
  BrowserView* browser_view_;

  // Extensions are profile-scoped, and thus any state/logic should be in a
  // ProfileKeyedService. If the user has multiple tabs (possibly across
  // multiple windows) simultaneously interacting with FooTabFeature, then it's
  // likely that the extension will uninstall while it's still in use.
  void InstallExtension();
  void UninstallExtension();
};

// Instead do this:
FooTabFeature {
  // Guaranteed to remain valid for the lifetime of this class. This can be used
  // to dynamically access relevant window state via
  // tab_->GetBrowserWindowInterface()->GetFeatures().GetFooWindowFeature()
  TabInterface* tab_;
};

FooService : public KeyedService {
  void InstallExtension();
  void UninstallExtension();
};
  • Global functions should not access non-global state.
    • Pure functions do not access global state and are allowed. e.g. base::UTF8ToWide()
    • Global functions that wrap global state are allowed, e.g. IsFooFeatureEnabled() wraps the global variable BASE_FEATURE(kFooFeature,...)
    • Global functions that access non-global state are disallowed. e.g. static methods on BrowserList.
  • No distinction between //chrome/browser/BUILD.gn and //chrome/browser/ui/BUILD.gn
    • There is plenty of UI code outside of the ui subdirectory, and plenty of non-UI code inside of the ui subdirectory. Currently the two BUILD files allow circular includes. We will continue to treat these directories and BUILD files as interchangeable.

UI

  • Features should use WebUI and Views toolkit, which are x-platform.
    • Usage of underlying primitives is discouraged (aura, Cocoa, gtk, win32, etc.). This is usually a sign that either the feature is misusing the UI toolkits, or that the UI toolkits are missing important functionality.
  • Features should use “MVC”
    • Clear separation between controller (control flow), view (presentation of UI) and model (storage of data).
    • For simple features that do not require data persistence, we only require separation of controller from view.
    • TODO: work with UI/toolkit team to come up with appropriate examples.
  • Views:
    • For simple configuration changes, prefer to use existing setter methods and builder syntax.
    • Feel free to create custom view subclasses to encapsulate logic or override methods where doing so helps implement layout as the composition of smaller standard layouts, or similar. Don't try to jam the kitchen sink into a single giant view.
    • However, avoid subclassing existing concrete view subclasses, e.g. to add or tweak existing behavior. This risks violating the Google style guidance on multiple inheritance and makes maintenance challenging. In particular do not do this with core controls, as the behaviors of common controls should not vary across the product.
  • Avoid subclassing Widgets.
  • Avoid self-owned objects/classes for views or controllers.

General

  • Code unrelated to building a web-browser should not live in //chrome.
    • See chromeos/code.md for details on ChromeOS (non-browser) code.
    • We may move some modularized x-platform code into //components. The main distinction is that ChromeOS can depend on //components, but not on //chrome. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
  • Avoid nested message loops.
  • Threaded code should have DCHECKs asserting correct sequence.
    • Provides documentation and correctness checks.
    • See base/sequence_checker.h.
  • Avoid tight coupling of unrelated features.
    • This results in O(N^2) complexity, since every pair of features ends up implicitly coupled.
    • The proper solution is to work with UX to use consistent design language, which in turn results in O(N) complexity.
// Good, complexity is O(N) and no tight coupling using a well-understood and
// common design pattern: modality. Similar logic will be needed in other modal
// UIs. The logic in this class does not change regardless of how many other new
// modal features are created.
class Sparkles {
  // Shows sparkles over the entire tab. Should not be shown over other Chrome
  // contents (e.g. print preview)
  void Show() {
    if (tab_->CanShowModalUI()) {
      MakeSparkles();
      // Prevents other modals from showing until the member is reset.
      modal_ui_ = tab_->ShowModalUI();
    }
  }

  std::unique_ptr<ScopedTabModalUI> modal_ui_;
  raw_ptr<TabInterface> tab_;
};

// Bad. Introduces tight coupling between unrelated features. Similar logic is
// needed in PrintPreview and DevTools. Complexity will scale with O(N^2). When
// a new modal feature is created, every modal feature will need to be updated.
class Sparkles {
  void Show() {
    if (PrintPreview::Showing()) {
      return;
    }
    if (DevTools::Showing()) {
      return;
    }
    MakeSparkles();
  }
};
  • Most features should be gated by base::Feature, API keys and/or gn build configuration, not C preprocessor conditionals e.g. #if BUILDFLAG(FEATURE_FOO).
    • We ship a single product (Chrome) to multiple platforms. The purpose of preprocessor conditionals is:
      • (1) to allow platform-agnostic code to reference platform-specific code.
        • e.g. #if BUILDFLAG(OS_WIN)
      • (2) to glue src-internal into public //chromium/src.
        • e.g. #if BUILDFLAG(GOOGLE_CHROME_BRANDING)
      • (3) To make behavior changes to non-production binaries
        • e.g. #if !defined(NDEBUG)
        • e.g. #if defined(ADDRESS_SANITIZER)
    • (1) primarily serves as glue.
    • (2) turns Chromium into Chrome. We want the two to be as similar as possible. This preprocessor conditional should be used very sparingly. Almost all our tests are run against Chromium, so any logic behind this conditional will be mostly untested.
    • (3) is a last resort. The point of DEBUG/ASAN/... builds is to provide insight into problems that affect the production binaries we ship. By changing the production logic to do something different, we are no longer accomplishing this goal.
    • In all cases, large segments of code should not be gated behind preprocessor conditionals. Instead, they should be pulled into separate files via gn.
    • In the event that a feature does have large swathes of code in separate build files/translation units (e.g. extensions), using a custom feature flag (e.g. BUILDFLAG(ENABLE_EXTENSIONS)) to glue this into the main source is allowed. The glue code should be kept to a minimum.
  • Avoid run-time channel checking.
  • Macros are rarely appropriate. See google style guide
    • As a rule of thumb, the macros themselves should not contain conditional logic. Macros should not be triply (or more deeply) nested. When in doubt, ask a member of //chrome/OWNERS.
  • Avoid test only conditionals
    • This was historically common in unit_tests, because it was not possible to stub out dependencies due to lack of a clear API surface. By requiring modular features with clear API surfaces, it also becomes easy to perform dependency injection for tests, thereby removing the need for conditionals that can be nullptr in tests.
    • In the event that they are necessary, document and enforce via CHECK_IS_TEST().
    • As a corollary: do not use BrowserWithTestWindowTest. In production code, there is a 1:1 correspondence between “class Browser” and “class BrowserView”. Features that span the two classes (which is most UI features) should be able to unconditionally reference “class BrowserView”. The existence of this test suite forces features tested by these tests to have “if (!browser_view)” test-only checks in production code. Either write a browser test (where both classes are provided by the test fixture) or a unit test that requires neither.
      • This also comes from a corollary of don't use “class Browser”. Historically, features were written that take a “class Browser” as an input parameter. “class Browser” cannot be stubbed/faked/mocked, and BrowserWithTestWindowTest was written as a workaround as a way to provide a “class Browser” without a “class BrowserView”. New features should not be taking “class Browser” as input, and should instead perform dependency injection.
  • Every UI feature should have at least 1 CUJ test.
    • New UI features should write these tests using InteractiveBrowserTest.
  • Do not write change detector unit tests. The purpose of a unit test is to validate behavior of common and edge cases for a block of code that has many possible valid inputs.
// Good. Depending on context, this can be broken into separate tests.
bool IsPrime(int input);
TEST(Math, CheckIsPrime) {
  EXPECT_TRUE(IsPrime(2));
  EXPECT_TRUE(IsPrime(3));
  EXPECT_FALSE(IsPrime(99));
  EXPECT_FALSE(IsPrime(-2));
  EXPECT_FALSE(IsPrime(0));
  EXPECT_FALSE(IsPrime(1));
}

// Bad. This is a change detector test. Change detector tests are easy to spot
// because the test logic looks the same as the production logic.
class ShowButtonOnBrowserActivation : public BrowserActivationListener {
  void ShowButton();
  bool DidShowButton();

  // BrowserActivationListener overrides:
  void BrowserDidActivate() override {
    ShowButton();
  }
};

Test(ShowButtonOnBrowserActivationTest, ShowButtonOnActivate) {
  ShowButtonOnBrowserActivation listener;
  listener.BrowserDidActivate();
  EXPECT_TRUE(listener.DidShowButton());
}
  • Avoid unreachable branches.
    • We should have a semantic understanding of each path of control flow. How is this reached? If we don't know, then we should not have a conditional.
  • For a given base::Callback, execution should either be always synchronous, or always asynchronous. Mixing the two means callers have to deal with two distinct control flows, which often leads to incorrect handling of one. Avoid the following:
if (result.cached) {
  RunCallbackSync())
} else {
  GetResultAndRunCallbackAsync()
}
  • Avoid re-entrancy. Control flow should remain as localized as possible. Bad (unnecessary delegation, re-entrancy)
class CarFactory {
  std::unique_ptr<Car> CreateCar() {
    if (!CanCreateCar()) {
      return nullptr;
    }
    if (FactoryIsBusy() && !delegate->ShouldShowCarIfFactoryIsBusy()) {
      return nullptr;
    }
    return std::make_unique<Car>();
  }

  bool CanCreateCar();
  bool FactoryIsBusy();

  Delegate* delegate_ = nullptr;
};

class CarSalesPerson : public Delegate {
  // Can return nullptr, in which case no car is shown.
  std::unique_ptr<Car> ShowCar() {
    return car_factory_->CreateCar();
  }

  // Delegate overrides:
  // Whether the car should be shown, even if the factory is busy.
  bool ShouldShowCarIfFactoryIsBusy() override;

  CarFactory* car_factory_ = nullptr;
};

Good, version 1: Remove delegation. Pass all relevant state to CarFactory so that CreateCar() does not depend on non-local state.

class CarFactory {
  std::unique_ptr<Car> CreateCar(bool show_even_if_factory_is_busy) {
    if (!CanCreateCar()) {
      return nullptr;
    }
    if (FactoryIsBusy() && !show_even_if_factory_is_busy) {
      return nullptr;
    }
    return std::make_unique<Car>();
  }
  bool CanCreateCar();
  bool FactoryIsBusy();
};

class CarSalesPerson {
  // Can return nullptr, in which case no car is shown.
  std::unique_ptr<Car> ShowCar() {
    return car_factory_->CreateCar(ShouldShowCarIfFactoryIsBusy());
  }

  // Whether the car should be shown, even if the factory is busy.
  bool ShouldShowCarIfFactoryIsBusy();

  CarFactory* car_factory_ = nullptr;
};

Good, version 2: Remove delegation. CreateCar always creates a car (fewer conditionals). State only flows from CarFactory to CarSalesPerson (and never backwards).

class CarFactory {
  bool CanCreateCar();
  bool FactoryIsBusy();
  // Never returns nullptr.
  std::unique_ptr<Car> CreateCar();
};

class CarSalesPerson {
  // Can return nullptr, in which case no car is shown
  std::unique_ptr<Car> ShowCar() {
    if (!car_factory_->CanCreateCar()) {
      return nullptr;
    }
    if (car_factory_->FactoryIsBusy() && !ShouldShowCarIfFactoryIsBusy()) {
      return nullptr;
    }
    return car_factory_->CreateCar();
  }

  // Whether the car should be shown, even if the factory is busy.
  bool ShouldShowCarIfFactoryIsBusy();
  CarFactory* car_factory_ = nullptr;
};
  • Circular dependencies are a symptom of problematic design.

Bad. FeatureShowcase depends on FeatureA. FeatureA depends on FeatureB. FeatureB depends on FeatureShowcase. The root problem is that the design for FeatureShowcase uses both a pull and a push model for control flow.

// Shows an icon per feature. Needs to know whether each icon is visible.
class FeatureShowcase {
  FeatureShowcase() {
    // Checks whether A should be visible, and if so, shows A.
    if (FeatureA::IsVisible())
      ShowFeatureA();
  }

  // Called to make B visible.
  void ShowFeatureB();

};

class FeatureA {
  // Feature A depends on feature B.
  FeatureA(FeatureB* b);

  static bool IsVisible();
};

class FeatureB {
  FeatureB(FeatureShowcase* showcase) {
    if (IsVisible())
      showcase->ShowFeatureB();
  }
  static bool IsVisible();
};

Good, version 1. FeatureShowcase uses a pull model for control flow. FeatureShowcase depends on FeatureA and FeatureB. FeatureA depends on FeatureB. There is no circular dependency.

// Shows an icon per feature. Needs to know whether each icon is visible.
class FeatureShowcase {
  FeatureShowcase() {
    if (FeatureA::IsVisible())
      ShowFeatureA();
    if (FeatureB::IsVisible())
      ShowFeatureB();
  }
};

class FeatureA {
  // Feature A depends on feature B.
  FeatureA(FeatureB* b);

  static bool IsVisible();
};

class FeatureB {
  FeatureB();
  static bool IsVisible();
};

Good, version 2. FeatureShowcase uses a push model for control flow. FeatureA and FeatureB both depend on FeatureShowcase. There is no circular dependency.

// Shows an icon per feature. Needs to know whether each icon is visible.
class FeatureShowcase {
  FeatureShowcase();

  // Called to make A visible.
  void ShowFeatureA();

  // Called to make B visible.
  void ShowFeatureB();
};

class FeatureA {
  // Feature A depends on feature B.
  FeatureA(FeatureB* b, FeatureShowcase* showcase) {
    if (IsVisible())
        showcase->ShowFeatureA();
  }

  static bool IsVisible();
};

class FeatureB {
  FeatureB(FeatureShowcase* showcase) {
    if (IsVisible())
        showcase->ShowFeatureB();
  }

  static bool IsVisible();
};