Closed Bug 1027734 Opened 6 years ago Closed 4 years ago

Convert mozPay to WebIDL

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Device Interfaces, defect)

defect
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla47
Tracking Status
firefox47 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: khuey, Assigned: peterv)

References

(Depends on 1 open bug)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 2 obsolete files)

We should move mozPay to use WebIDL rather than the Javascript-navigator-property stuff and JS implemented class info.

ferjm, could you take this?
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
Note that because navigator.mozPay is a function, we either need to find a solution for bug 986455 or implement at least part of it in C++.
Depends on: 986455
I'm afraid that I won't be able to take this at least until the 2.0 peak is gone. Leaving the ni? anyway so I don't forget about this.
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
How about now?

The current mechanism that this API is using is going away soonish.
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
Assignee: nobody → ferjmoreno
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
Attached patch Untested WIP (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Assignee: ferjmoreno → peterv
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attached patch v1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Need to figure out why the tests don't work yet.
Attachment #8474215 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached patch v2Splinter Review
Attachment #8711843 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8713728 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 8713728 [details] [diff] [review]
v2

>+++ b/dom/webidl/Navigator.webidl

>+  // The 'jwts' parameter can be either a single DOMString or an array of
>+  // DOMStrings.

Sure would be nice to make it a (DOMString or sequence<DOMString>) or something, but then talking to the back end would be a tad more annoying.  On the other hand, it wouldn't involve chrome poking at content arrays...

r=me as-is, but this might be worth a followup.
Attachment #8713728 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky [:bz] from comment #7)
> Sure would be nice to make it a (DOMString or sequence<DOMString>) or
> something, but then talking to the back end would be a tad more annoying. 
> On the other hand, it wouldn't involve chrome poking at content arrays...

I thought about that, but would that do what we want if someone passes in a string? I thought it would end up being converted to a sequence because String has an @@iterator and conversion to sequence is an earlier step than conversion to string in http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-union.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
I guess I should have said "... passes in a String object". Maybe we don't care about that case.
I suspect we don't care about the String object case.  But as I said, this should be a followup if we do it at all.  We should certainly not hold up landing this over the DOMString union issue.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1f5aaf208c71
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla47
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.