(In reply to Marco Bonardo [:mak] from comment #2) > We're not debouncing these operations, so it's a lot less efficient than the "remove all these selected entries" case. Just to clarify, in case it wasn't obvious: the Steps To Reproduce here **do actually involve** a "remove all these selected entries" operation. (note the "select-all" in the STR). The good vs. bad scenarios are just "press **and release** Del" [good] vs. "press **and hold** Del" [bad]; but in both cases, the setup involves having **all the entries selected**. So: if there exists an efficient "Remove all these selected entries" codepath, then it seems like my STR should be hitting it (perhaps hitting it repeatedly/redundantly), right? Though maybe I'm misunderstanding you. (Just mentioning since I can imagine the quite-different STR of "select the first entry, and then press and hold Del, to iteratively remove each entry one at a time" being a substantially different & less-efficient operation.)
Bug 1824872 Comment 4 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Marco Bonardo [:mak] from comment #2) > We're not debouncing these operations, so it's a lot less efficient than the "remove all these selected entries" case. Just to clarify, in case it wasn't obvious: the Steps To Reproduce here **do actually involve** a "remove all these selected entries" operation. (note the "select-all" in the STR). The good vs. bad scenarios are just "press **and release** Del" [good] vs. "press **and hold** Del" [bad]; but in both cases, the setup involves having **all the entries selected**. So: if there exists an efficient "Remove all these selected entries" codepath, then it seems like my STR should be hitting it (perhaps hitting it repeatedly/redundantly), right? Though maybe I'm misunderstanding you. (Just mentioning since I can imagine the quite-different STR of "select the first entry, and then press and hold Del, to iteratively remove each entry one at a time" being a substantially different & less-efficient operation. It sounded like maybe that's how you were interpreting this bug's setup. Maybe that is what happens under the hood, even; but I'm not clear if that's expected or not.)