Closed
Bug 1178863
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
ESLint cleanup, batch #3
Categories
(DevTools :: Console, defect)
Tracking
(firefox42 fixed)
RESOLVED
FIXED
Firefox 42
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox42 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: jfong, Assigned: jfong)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
189.12 KB,
patch
|
jfong
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
Try: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=a00d8c686c19
Attachment #8628840 -
Flags: review?(pbrosset)
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8628840 [details] [diff] [review] Bug1178863.patch Review of attachment 8628840 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- These changes look mechanical, so I've randomly reviewed half of the changed files only. I'm sure TRY will pick up error far better than me on this kind of patch. I've only commented on a couple of minor stuff. ::: browser/devtools/webconsole/test/browser_webconsole_bug_602572_log_bodies_checkbox.js @@ +25,5 @@ > if (runCount == 0) { > requestLongerTimeout(2); > } > > + // open tab 2 Just curious, why did you move this function out of its original scope? Was it to reduce the complexity of the function and avoid some ESLint warning? ::: browser/devtools/webconsole/test/browser_webconsole_bug_762593_insecure_passwords_about_blank_web_console_warning.js @@ +9,5 @@ > > +const TEST_URI = "http://example.com/browser/browser/devtools/webconsole/" + > + "test/test-bug-762593-insecure-passwords-about-blank-web-console-warning.html"; > +const INSECURE_PASSWORD_MSG = "Password fields present on an insecure " + > + "(http://) page. This is a security risk that allows user login " + You formatted TEST_URI differently (aligned all string parts with the first part), maybe use a consistent style here.
Attachment #8628840 -
Flags: review?(pbrosset) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Patrick Brosset [:pbrosset] [:pbro] from comment #2) > Comment on attachment 8628840 [details] [diff] [review] > Bug1178863.patch > > Review of attachment 8628840 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > These changes look mechanical, so I've randomly reviewed half of the changed > files only. I'm sure TRY will pick up error far better than me on this kind > of patch. > I've only commented on a couple of minor stuff. > > ::: > browser/devtools/webconsole/test/ > browser_webconsole_bug_602572_log_bodies_checkbox.js > @@ +25,5 @@ > > if (runCount == 0) { > > requestLongerTimeout(2); > > } > > > > + // open tab 2 > > Just curious, why did you move this function out of its original scope? Was > it to reduce the complexity of the function and avoid some ESLint warning? Yep, the ESLint rules do not want more than 3 nested levels (same as the last patch - there was one that had a similar error). I believe it was a red not a yellow (warning). Should we remove that ESLint rule and keep them nested as is until we can supported chained thens? Or leave this change as is? > > ::: > browser/devtools/webconsole/test/ > browser_webconsole_bug_762593_insecure_passwords_about_blank_web_console_warn > ing.js > @@ +9,5 @@ > > > > +const TEST_URI = "http://example.com/browser/browser/devtools/webconsole/" + > > + "test/test-bug-762593-insecure-passwords-about-blank-web-console-warning.html"; > > +const INSECURE_PASSWORD_MSG = "Password fields present on an insecure " + > > + "(http://) page. This is a security risk that allows user login " + > > You formatted TEST_URI differently (aligned all string parts with the first > part), maybe use a consistent style here. Okay, will update.
Flags: needinfo?(pbrosset)
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jen Fong-Adwent [:ednapiranha] from comment #3) > Yep, the ESLint rules do not want more than 3 nested levels (same as the > last patch - there was one that had a similar error). I believe it was a red > not a yellow (warning). Should we remove that ESLint rule and keep them > nested as is until we can supported chained thens? Or leave this change as > is? Let's keep this change as is.
Flags: needinfo?(pbrosset)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
Updated indentation.
Attachment #8628840 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8628979 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/69d41db364e8
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
status-firefox42:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 42
Updated•6 years ago
|
Product: Firefox → DevTools
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•