1155700 - Make built-in Map/Set visible with XRay vision

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

Description

[Oleg Zasypkin [:azasypkin]]

Currently we should use Components.utils.waiveXrays() to make Map/Set visible in privileged code, but it would be great to make it visible through XRay vision as other well known built-in types.

Comment 1

[Bobby Holley (:bholley)]

Yes, this would be nice. Just needs somebody to do it. CCing the two people aside from me who know how to implement XrayToJS. :-)

Comment 2

[Nick Fitzgerald [:fitzgen] [⏰PST; UTC-8]]

(In reply to Oleg Zasypkin [:azasypkin] from comment #0)
> Currently we should use Components.utils.waiveXrays() to make Map/Set
> visible in privileged code, but it would be great to make it visible through
> XRay vision as other well known built-in types.

"Should"? That sounds scary to me, how is that safe?

(In reply to Bobby Holley (:bholley) from comment #1)
> Yes, this would be nice. Just needs somebody to do it. CCing the two people
> aside from me who know how to implement XrayToJS. :-)

Unfortunately, my Q2 is already accounted for :(

Comment 3

[Oleg Zasypkin [:azasypkin]]

(In reply to Nick Fitzgerald [:fitzgen] from comment #2)
> (In reply to Oleg Zasypkin [:azasypkin] from comment #0)
> > Currently we should use Components.utils.waiveXrays() to make Map/Set
> > visible in privileged code, but it would be great to make it visible through
> > XRay vision as other well known built-in types.
> 
> "Should"? That sounds scary to me, how is that safe?
> 
Well, "should" was probably too strong :) We pass Map (test generated data) from the test(web content context) to API mock (privileged context) in Marionette JS integration tests(gaia/FxOS). So in tests we can sacrifice safety for the simpler code.

Comment 4

[Kyle Machulis [:qdot] [:kmachulis] (INACTIVE)]

Taking, aiming for Q3, possibly along with bug 1023984 but we'll see how this one goes first.

Comment 5

[Tom S [:evilpie]]

Attachment: Use ClassSpec for Map/Set

Comment 6

[Tom S [:evilpie]]

Attachment: Use ClassSpec for Map/Set

My plan is to extend plain-object-prototypes.js in the future and fix some other prototypes. I am not sure exactly how useful the error message test is, and if it might actually make sense if it said something like "incompatible MapPrototype".

Comment 7

[Tooru Fujisawa [:arai]]

Comment on attachment 8809750 [details] [diff] [review]
Use ClassSpec for Map/Set

Review of attachment 8809750 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

r+ with some fix in tests.

::: js/src/builtin/MapObject.cpp
@@ +302,5 @@
> +    nullptr,
> +    MapObject::staticProperties,
> +    MapObject::methods,
> +    MapObject::properties,
> +    nullptr,

trailing `nullptr` can be omitted.

@@ +1032,5 @@
> +    nullptr,
> +    SetObject::staticProperties,
> +    SetObject::methods,
> +    SetObject::properties,
> +    nullptr,

here too, `nullptr` can be omitted.

::: js/src/jit-test/tests/basic/plain-object-prototypes.js
@@ +6,5 @@
> +    Date.prototype,
> +];
> +
> +// if ('Promise' in this)
> +//     prototypes.push(Promise.prototype)

This needs some comment or bug number.
also this can be simply moved into `prototypes` array, since Promise always exists.

@@ +13,5 @@
> +    delete prototype[Symbol.toStringTag];
> +    assertEq(Object.prototype.toString.call(prototype), "[object Object]");
> +}
> +
> +// Make sure the real class name is not exposed by Errors.

Please move this test *before* removing @@toStringTag, or simply new file.

@@ +28,5 @@
> +assertThrowsObjectError(() => Map.prototype.has(0));
> +assertThrowsObjectError(() => Set.prototype.has(0));
> +assertThrowsObjectError(() => WeakMap.prototype.has({}));
> +assertThrowsObjectError(() => WeakSet.prototype.has({}));
> +assertThrowsObjectError(() => WeakSet.prototype.has({}));
\ No newline at end of file

Please remove duplication and add Date.prototype.getSeconds() or something instead.

Comment 8

[Tom S [:evilpie]]

Attachment: Enable Map/Set Xrays

Sadly because we still can't xray iterators I had to bring back that hack in test_XrayToJS. I will try to look into writing xray support iterators soon.

Comment 9

[Tom S [:evilpie]]

Bz, sorry for always making you review those, but Bobby is busy as well.

Comment 10

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Comment on attachment 8810125 [details] [diff] [review]
Enable Map/Set Xrays

Please test all the things exposed over Xrays.  I assume testXray() tests "constructor" and perhaps toString(), right?  And you're testing size/get on Map and size/has on Set.  But still need to test has on Map, set/delete on Map, add/delete on Set, clear/forEach on both.  And if the iterator stuff actually works, test that too, please (entries, values, keys, for-of loop).

Comment 11

[Tom S [:evilpie]]

Attachment: v2 Enable Map/Set Xrays

Sorry, that was sloppy. Values, keys and @@iterator don't work, because we don't have Xrays to Iterators.

Comment 12

[Tom S [:evilpie]]

Bz, review please. Thank you!

Comment 13

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Comment on attachment 8811891 [details] [diff] [review]
v2 Enable Map/Set Xrays

r=me

Comment 14

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/e93d0eef9f72
Change Map/Set to use ClassSpec. r=arai
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/547235a8b10e
Enable Map/Set Xrays. r=bz

Comment 15

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e93d0eef9f72
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/547235a8b10e