Closed
Bug 304764
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
Body event handlers don't survive a back/forward trip
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: mrbkap, Assigned: mrbkap)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
134 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
|
6.67 KB,
patch
|
jst
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I noticed after my checkin for bug 303267, event handlers on the <BODY> element weren't making it through a back/forward trip. This is because we incorrectly null out mListenerManager on the newInner in nsGlobalWindow::SetNewDocument. I have a simple patch that fixes this, but I need to check to make sure that it isn't going to allow multiple inner windows to hold the same listener manager.
|
Assignee | |
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
Steps to reproduce: * Click on the body - Note the onclick handler is called and shows the alert * Click on the link - Note that the onclick handler is called for the link and for the body. The new page loads. * Click on the back button. * Click on the body. - Note that the onclick handler is *not* called. * Click on the link. - The link's onclick handler is called, but the body's is not.
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 2•19 years ago
|
||
I need to test this for whether or not this allows the same listener manager to be held by two inner windows (I don't think this is possible, but if it is, then we need to clone the listener manager instead of simply copying it over).
|
|
Assignee | |
Updated•19 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
|
||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Blocks: blazinglyfastback
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 3•19 years ago
|
||
Based on the assertions that we decided to make about reUseInnerWindow, I think that we can make the same ones about aRemoveEventListeners. I tried to make the new page load after the about:blank page would have loaded (i.e., w = window.open(); w.onload = ...; w.location.href = ...) and things seemed to work fine.
Attachment #192794 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #192856 -
Flags: review?(jst)
|
||
Comment 4•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 192856 [details] [diff] [review] some more assertions r=jst, looks good.
Attachment #192856 -
Flags: review?(jst) → review+
|
|
Assignee | |
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #192856 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
|
|
||
Comment 5•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 192856 [details] [diff] [review] some more assertions Blake says this is being handled elsewhere.
Attachment #192856 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 6•19 years ago
|
||
This was fixed by the checkin for bug 303765.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•