Closed
Bug 1266035
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Move AvailableIn=(PrivilegedApps|CertifiedApps) to ChromeOnly
Categories
(Firefox OS Graveyard :: General, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: gerard-majax, Assigned: gerard-majax)
References
(Depends on 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(46 files, 48 obsolete files)
|
45.09 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
8.96 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
38.44 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
4.09 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
12.71 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
17.06 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
12.12 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
938 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
2.20 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
13.12 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
53.15 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
2.23 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
37.40 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
11.54 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
2.73 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
3.47 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
27.14 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
2.60 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
42.17 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
3.99 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
3.15 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
8.30 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
113.95 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
17.93 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
1.62 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
17.75 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
873 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
7.25 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
1.03 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
3.13 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
2.08 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
892 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
858 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
1.52 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
811 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
971 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
3.08 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
941 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
1014 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
952 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
7.84 KB,
text/x-python
|
Details | |
|
254.19 KB,
application/x-bzip
|
Details | |
|
252.74 KB,
application/x-bzip
|
Details | |
|
114.61 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
|
10.49 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
jdm
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
4.45 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
jdm
:
review+
gerard-majax
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Do we want to do this for all APIs?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
And we want to make sure we do not start exposing those in browser.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Boris, history shows you are by far the biggest contributor to dom/bindings/Codegen.py and related so I guess you have an opinion on this: should I completely get rid of AvailableIn and CheckAnyPermission logic, or should I just remove support for PrivilegedApps and CertifiedApps ?
I would tend to think the former makes more sense, because I don't see any other current use outside of B2G.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
This stuff was added entirely for b2g I believe. Jonas, do we have any plans to reuse it for something else, or should it just go away?
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky) → needinfo?(jonas)
I can't speak for B2G/CD plans any more. Forwarding to Fabrice.
Flags: needinfo?(jonas) → needinfo?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
I could get Mulet debug booting transition Gaia branch with no visible regression :).
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
No plans to reuse that, so no objections on my side to remove all that support.
Flags: needinfo?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Alexandre LISSY :gerard-majax from comment #5)
> I could get Mulet debug booting transition Gaia branch with no visible
> regression :).
And on device.
Meanwhile: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=5e0a794dbdf2
| Assignee | ||
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Alexandre LISSY :gerard-majax from comment #7)
> (In reply to Alexandre LISSY :gerard-majax from comment #5)
> > I could get Mulet debug booting transition Gaia branch with no visible
> > regression :).
>
> And on device.
>
> Meanwhile:
> https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=5e0a794dbdf2
Much failures because we do not expose the API, in mochitests, I guess this is a good sign :)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Alexandre LISSY :gerard-majax from comment #7)
> (In reply to Alexandre LISSY :gerard-majax from comment #5)
> > I could get Mulet debug booting transition Gaia branch with no visible
> > regression :).
>
> And on device.
>
> Meanwhile:
> https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=5e0a794dbdf2
And for reference, a push without the patch: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=49ff346eca8f
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
This is good enough to move exposure to ChromeOnly and builds everywhere.
Attachment #8745304 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8745304 [details] [diff] [review]
Get rid of AvailableIn, CheckAnyPermissions and CheckAllPermissions r?bz
> def FeatureList(config):
So... with these changes, things always ends up being the empty set/list, no? Seems like there's more stuff to remove here, possibly in a followup.
Similarly, dom::IsInCertifiedApp and dom::IsInPrivilegedApp are now dead code, I believe, along with the stuff in workers tracking that state... Again, followup is probably OK.
r=me, but do make sure that various dead code gets removed.
Attachment #8745304 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
I will verify and include those changes now. Thanks!
| Assignee | ||
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
Removed those dead code in the python code generator, the dom::IsInCertifiedApp/IsInPrivilegedApp and the subsequents parts within worker code. Now checking how it goes with building/running :)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
Updated patch, with the extra dead code removed. How should I proceed for
reviewing the WebIDL changes? Should I ask sr to you on all of them, or just
ask review to the people in charge of each one?
Attachment #8745304 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747104 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
Can you please post the interdiff against the patch I already reviewed? Bugzilla's diff, as usual, is failing. Or at least claims it is.
For the IDL changes, probably best to get reviews from people who own the relevant APIs; I can do a once-over.
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 16•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 17•10 years ago
|
||
Interdiff at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?oldid=8745304&action=interdiff&newid=8747104&headers=1 is working for me and looks legit, I'll generate one from my tree :)
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
This should be the good interdiff
Attachment #8747122 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
> Interdiff at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?oldid=8745304&action=interdiff&newid=8747104&headers=1 is working for me
Well, except for the part where it claims it's probably wrong, yes? ;)
Thanks for putting up an interdiff.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 20•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: B0PPS6HCrgx
| Assignee | ||
Comment 21•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: KxZIOO3OXsK
| Assignee | ||
Comment 22•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: IHoxG2y32CL
| Assignee | ||
Comment 23•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: Hn0Yueqj0CD
| Assignee | ||
Comment 24•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 8LuaE2V0fx1
| Assignee | ||
Comment 25•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5rCY03CLBaG
| Assignee | ||
Comment 26•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 7j3MCq5b6Zg
| Assignee | ||
Comment 27•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: DmCbtaSxgFe
| Assignee | ||
Comment 28•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 3n3gUhRVMoF
| Assignee | ||
Comment 29•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 7SCYk7CoyEd
| Assignee | ||
Comment 30•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: L2C0ILv60Hr
| Assignee | ||
Comment 31•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: AIwTszgegor
| Assignee | ||
Comment 32•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: JOnHviptd2p
| Assignee | ||
Comment 33•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: CRXiEKkmipp
| Assignee | ||
Comment 34•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5CmuER0FJCy
| Assignee | ||
Comment 35•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: KIYliqNH0BI
| Assignee | ||
Comment 36•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 9FYhjxhcyUP
| Assignee | ||
Comment 37•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: F4sq3m1j6WA
| Assignee | ||
Comment 38•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 7QZ0Mp22r9Y
| Assignee | ||
Comment 39•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: Eba5Qo8YDfB
| Assignee | ||
Comment 40•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: JHHa8YCUBrc
| Assignee | ||
Comment 41•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: AVbgauvTDlR
| Assignee | ||
Comment 42•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: EqiDAECJ2Sj
| Assignee | ||
Comment 43•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: M7fGGOOTW6
| Assignee | ||
Comment 44•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: LocqWgykUYI
| Assignee | ||
Comment 45•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 8pwXD8ZtprJ
| Assignee | ||
Comment 46•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: HoNh8mPESax
| Assignee | ||
Comment 47•10 years ago
|
||
Plan: fix tests, ask r? and sr? after.
Comment 48•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747122 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Comment 49•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8747104 [details] [diff] [review]
Get rid of AvailableIn, CheckAnyPermissions and CheckAllPermissions
r=me
Attachment #8747104 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 50•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: C2ezlZB9z0a
Attachment #8748074 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 51•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: KxZIOO3OXsK
Attachment #8747200 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748075 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 52•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: L2C0ILv60Hr
Attachment #8747209 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748076 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 53•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: F5nI61L9rYe
Attachment #8748077 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 54•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 9FYhjxhcyUP
Attachment #8747215 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748078 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 55•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5jgIsXVtHOL
Attachment #8748079 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 56•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8748077 [details] [diff] [review]
Switch Contacts-related mochitests to chrome
Review of attachment 8748077 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: dom/bindings/test/chrome.ini
@@ +13,1 @@
> [test_bug707564-chrome.html]
And test_bug707564-chrome.html is failing (because of http:// loaded from chrome://, fixing this then it fails on wrappedJSObjet undefined), should we just kill it? It feels like just dupe now.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 57•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: F5nI61L9rYe
Attachment #8748077 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748077 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8748118 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 58•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: EFmqrkGXjms
Attachment #8748239 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 59•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: EqiDAECJ2Sj
Attachment #8747221 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748241 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748074 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748075 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748076 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748078 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748079 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748118 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748239 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8748241 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 60•10 years ago
|
||
MozReview-Commit-ID: F5nI61L9rYe
Attachment #8748118 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748693 -
Flags: review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 61•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8747206 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn RequestSync API to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
Dead API
Attachment #8747206 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 62•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8747223 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn mozKillSwitch API to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
(soon) Dead API
Attachment #8747223 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 63•10 years ago
|
||
Pref for Presentation DeviceInfo was removed. Restore it.
Attachment #8748075 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 64•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8748693 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8750759 -
Flags: review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 65•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 66•10 years ago
|
||
And pine as reference before removing RequestSync/KillSwitch APIs: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=62ecac29b6e4
| Assignee | ||
Comment 67•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 68•10 years ago
|
||
Biggest pain point to deal with is going to be the mochitest-oop file from dom/browser-element/
| Assignee | ||
Comment 69•10 years ago
|
||
With webidl changes: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=0b754f9af9ef
Without those: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=4b3b8c3a4d01bffd53f41619aa38acfac703d57e
We are getting to the point of all tests migrated and/or a few of them disabled (mostly mochitest-oop that are indeed testing B2G specific features). I am in the process of writing a tool to compare test runs per platforms on each try push to ensure we have not reduced the coverage (at least that any change is what we meant).
| Assignee | ||
Comment 70•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747199 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 71•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 72•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8750262 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 73•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8748074 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 74•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 75•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747201 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 76•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747202 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 77•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747203 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 78•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 79•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 80•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747204 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 81•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747205 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 82•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747207 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 83•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747208 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 84•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 85•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8748076 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 86•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8750759 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 87•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747210 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 88•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747211 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 89•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747212 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 90•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 91•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 92•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747213 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 93•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 94•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747214 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 95•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 96•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8748078 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 97•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8748079 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 98•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747216 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 99•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 100•10 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 101•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747217 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 102•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747218 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 103•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747219 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 104•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747220 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 105•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8748241 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 106•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8748239 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 107•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747222 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 108•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747224 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 109•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8747225 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 110•10 years ago
|
||
Tool to extract test execution informations from a try push
| Assignee | ||
Comment 111•10 years ago
|
||
result of try push: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=4b3b8c3a4d01
| Assignee | ||
Comment 112•10 years ago
|
||
result for try push: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=0b754f9af9ef
| Assignee | ||
Comment 113•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8752856 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 114•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8752857 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 115•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8752858 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 116•10 years ago
|
||
diff between try tests executions collected with th-logs.py
| Assignee | ||
Comment 117•10 years ago
|
||
remove whitespace at the end of each line for easier reading
Attachment #8753334 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 118•10 years ago
|
||
more context: more readable
Attachment #8753335 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752771 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752771 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752773 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752773 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752776 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752776 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752777 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752777 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752778 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752778 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752783 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752783 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752784 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752784 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752785 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752785 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752786 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752786 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752789 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752789 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752791 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752791 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752792 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752792 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752794 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752794 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752797 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752797 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752799 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752799 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752801 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752801 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752803 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752803 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752806 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752806 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752807 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752807 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752808 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752808 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752809 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752809 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752810 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752810 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752812 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752812 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752814 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752814 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752815 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752815 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752811 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752805 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752804 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752802 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752800 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752798 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752796 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752795 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752790 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752787 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752782 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752781 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752775 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752774 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752772 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 119•10 years ago
|
||
Fabrice, Boris, sorry in advance for the spammy set of reviews. The WebIDL changes should be easy to review :)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752771 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Comment 120•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8752773 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn TV-related APIs to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
sr=me
I'll be honest; I'm just rubber-stamping all these. Not reading very carefully.
Attachment #8752773 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752776 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752777 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752778 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752783 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752784 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752785 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752786 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752789 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752791 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752792 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752794 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Comment 121•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8752797 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn UDP/TCP Socket APIs to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
>+++ b/dom/network/TCPSocket.cpp
This change doesn't look right to me. We used to expose TCPSocket in chrome, and if the pref was set also in places with the tcp-socket permission. But now we're going to expose it in chrome, and also if the pref is set _everywhere_.
That doesn't seem right at all.
Attachment #8752797 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview-
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752799 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752801 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752803 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752806 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752807 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752808 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752809 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752812 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752814 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752815 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 122•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky [:bz] from comment #121)
> Comment on attachment 8752797 [details] [diff] [review]
> Turn UDP/TCP Socket APIs to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
>
> >+++ b/dom/network/TCPSocket.cpp
>
> This change doesn't look right to me. We used to expose TCPSocket in
> chrome, and if the pref was set also in places with the tcp-socket
> permission. But now we're going to expose it in chrome, and also if the
> pref is set _everywhere_.
>
> That doesn't seem right at all.
I agree with you, but we are removing permissions also, so I don't see how we can limit the scope in chrome :/
Comment 123•10 years ago
|
||
Well, what are the intended semanics of this pref? Is the idea that this is exposed in chrome no matter the pref value and the pref value controls .... what? Or is the idea that this is only exposed in chrome and only if the pref is set?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 124•10 years ago
|
||
Given bug 1207090 I think we want to expose to any chrome, no? Maybe we can just kill the pref then?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 125•10 years ago
|
||
Ok, given dom/webidl/TCPSocket.webidl we were only limiting the scope of mozTCPSocket object, but the TCPSocket itself was still exposed to content :/
| Assignee | ||
Comment 126•10 years ago
|
||
Boris, as I said in comment 124, bug 1207090 enabled use of this whatever the pref value was. Since we are changing the scope to be limited to Chrome, I guess we can drop the |Func| part change the WebIDLs to be ChromeOnly, get rid of the pref?
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752797 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752798 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 128•10 years ago
|
||
Josh, I need your confirmation regarding what is stated in comment 121, 124 and 126. Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(josh)
Comment 129•10 years ago
|
||
It seems to me that making ShouldTCPSocketExist return false if it's called for a non-system principal would do the job.
Flags: needinfo?(josh)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 130•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8752797 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 131•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8752798 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Comment 132•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8753556 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn UDP/TCP Socket APIs to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
Updated the scoping so that:
- it's not exposed to content
- it's exposed to window chrome
- it's exposed to jsm
Attachment #8753556 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8753556 -
Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #8753556 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8753559 -
Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #8753559 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
Comment 133•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8753556 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn UDP/TCP Socket APIs to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
I recommend replacing this pattern:
if (foo) {
return true;
}
return false;
with:
return foo;
>+ Func="mozilla::dom::TCPSocket::ShouldTCPSocketExist", Exposed=(Window,System)]
Please keep this on two lines like it used to be.
Same in various other places.
sr=me
Attachment #8753556 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 134•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8753556 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8753556 -
Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #8753556 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8753720 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #8753720 -
Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #8753720 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 135•10 years ago
|
||
Boris, is there something wrong with attachment 8752810 [details] [diff] [review] ? Or did it just slipped through because of the amount of reviews :) ?
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752771 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752772 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752773 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752774 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752775 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752776 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752777 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752778 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752781 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752782 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752783 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752784 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752785 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752786 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752787 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752789 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752790 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752791 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752792 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752794 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752795 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752796 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752799 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752800 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752801 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752802 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752803 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752804 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752805 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752806 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752807 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752808 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752809 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752810 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752811 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752812 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752814 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8752815 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8753720 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8753559 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Comment 136•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8752810 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn mozChromeNotifications API to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
sr=me
Just got lost in the tab-storm.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752810 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 137•10 years ago
|
||
Awesome, thanks!
| Assignee | ||
Comment 138•10 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 139•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8753720 [details] [diff] [review]
Turn UDP/TCP Socket APIs to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz
Review of attachment 8753720 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: dom/network/TCPSocket.cpp
@@ -1222,5 @@
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> - const char* const perms[] = { "tcp-socket", nullptr };
> - return Preferences::GetBool("dom.mozTCPSocket.enabled") &&
Just to confirm, we're intentionally removing the TCP preference but leaving the UDP one?
Attachment #8753720 -
Flags: review?(josh) → review+
Comment 140•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8753559 [details] [diff] [review]
Switch UDP/TCP Socket mochitests to chrome
Review of attachment 8753559 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: dom/network/tests/test_tcpsocket_client_and_server_basics.js
@@ -154,5 @@
> }
>
>
> function* test_basics() {
> - if (enablePrefsAndPermissions()) {
Let's remove enablePrefsAndPermissions from tcpsocket_test.jsm and test_tcpsocket_client_and_server_basics.html.
::: dom/network/tests/test_tcpsocket_enabled_no_perm.html
@@ -15,5 @@
> /** Test to ensure TCPSocket preference being turned on does not enable
> navigator.mozTCPSocket.
> **/
> SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish();
> SpecialPowers.pushPrefEnv({"set": [['dom.mozTCPSocket.enabled', true]]}, runTest);
If we don't use the preference anymore we shouldn't use it in the test.
::: dom/network/tests/test_tcpsocket_enabled_with_perm.html
@@ +16,5 @@
> navigator.mozTCPSocket, and mozTCPSocket.open works when
> the tcp-socket permission has been granted.
> **/
> SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish();
> +SpecialPowers.pushPrefEnv({"set": [['dom.mozTCPSocket.enabled', true]]}, runTest);
No need for this if we're not using the preference.
::: dom/network/tests/test_tcpsocket_legacy.html
@@ +18,5 @@
> <pre id="test">
> </pre>
> <script>
> SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish();
> SpecialPowers.pushPrefEnv(
No need for this if we're not using the preference.
Attachment #8753559 -
Flags: review?(josh) → review+
Comment 141•10 years ago
|
||
This landed on pine 2 weeks ago. When is it going to merge to m-c? The review for the codegen was obviously conditional on this landing on m-c.
Having this stuff still around on m-c is going to start causing problems in about 5 minutes, because I will be making codegen changes that will conflict with these...
Updated•10 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 142•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky [:bz] from comment #141)
> This landed on pine 2 weeks ago. When is it going to merge to m-c? The
> review for the codegen was obviously conditional on this landing on m-c.
>
> Having this stuff still around on m-c is going to start causing problems in
> about 5 minutes, because I will be making codegen changes that will conflict
> with these...
Yes, it is planned to merge as soon as possible, but there are still reftests on pine that are broken. This is all pending reviews mostly.
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 143•10 years ago
|
||
FYI there has already been several cases of m-c => pine conflicts around since we landed and merged over the days, I don't think it's such a big deal to have some new ones :)
Comment 144•9 years ago
|
||
Is there a bug on file for fixing and re-enabling all the tests in dom/browser-element/mochitest this disabled?
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 145•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #144)
> Is there a bug on file for fixing and re-enabling all the tests in
> dom/browser-element/mochitest this disabled?
I don't think so
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•