Closed Bug 1266035 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

Move AvailableIn=(PrivilegedApps|CertifiedApps) to ChromeOnly

Categories

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: General, defect)

ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
defect
Not set
normal

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?
And we want to make sure we do not start exposing those in browser.
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)
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)
I could get Mulet debug booting transition Gaia branch with no visible regression :).
No plans to reuse that, so no objections on my side to remove all that support.
Flags: needinfo?(fabrice)
(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
(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 :)
(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
This is good enough to move exposure to ChromeOnly and builds everywhere.
Attachment #8745304 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
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+
I will verify and include those changes now. Thanks!
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 :)
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)
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)
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)
This should be the good interdiff
Attachment #8747122 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
> 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.
MozReview-Commit-ID: B0PPS6HCrgx
MozReview-Commit-ID: KxZIOO3OXsK
MozReview-Commit-ID: IHoxG2y32CL
MozReview-Commit-ID: Hn0Yueqj0CD
MozReview-Commit-ID: 8LuaE2V0fx1
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5rCY03CLBaG
MozReview-Commit-ID: 7j3MCq5b6Zg
MozReview-Commit-ID: DmCbtaSxgFe
MozReview-Commit-ID: 3n3gUhRVMoF
MozReview-Commit-ID: 7SCYk7CoyEd
MozReview-Commit-ID: L2C0ILv60Hr
MozReview-Commit-ID: AIwTszgegor
MozReview-Commit-ID: JOnHviptd2p
MozReview-Commit-ID: CRXiEKkmipp
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5CmuER0FJCy
MozReview-Commit-ID: KIYliqNH0BI
MozReview-Commit-ID: 9FYhjxhcyUP
MozReview-Commit-ID: F4sq3m1j6WA
MozReview-Commit-ID: 7QZ0Mp22r9Y
MozReview-Commit-ID: Eba5Qo8YDfB
MozReview-Commit-ID: JHHa8YCUBrc
MozReview-Commit-ID: AVbgauvTDlR
MozReview-Commit-ID: EqiDAECJ2Sj
MozReview-Commit-ID: M7fGGOOTW6
MozReview-Commit-ID: LocqWgykUYI
MozReview-Commit-ID: 8pwXD8ZtprJ
MozReview-Commit-ID: HoNh8mPESax
Plan: fix tests, ask r? and sr? after.
Comment on attachment 8747122 [details] [diff] [review] bug1266035_inter.diff Awesome. r=me
Attachment #8747122 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Comment on attachment 8747104 [details] [diff] [review] Get rid of AvailableIn, CheckAnyPermissions and CheckAllPermissions r=me
Attachment #8747104 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
MozReview-Commit-ID: C2ezlZB9z0a
Attachment #8748074 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
MozReview-Commit-ID: KxZIOO3OXsK
Attachment #8747200 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748075 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
MozReview-Commit-ID: L2C0ILv60Hr
Attachment #8747209 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748076 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
MozReview-Commit-ID: F5nI61L9rYe
Attachment #8748077 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
MozReview-Commit-ID: 9FYhjxhcyUP
Attachment #8747215 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748078 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5jgIsXVtHOL
Attachment #8748079 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Depends on: 1269303
Depends on: 1269469
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.
MozReview-Commit-ID: F5nI61L9rYe
Attachment #8748077 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748077 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8748118 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
MozReview-Commit-ID: EFmqrkGXjms
Attachment #8748239 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
MozReview-Commit-ID: EqiDAECJ2Sj
Attachment #8747221 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748241 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8748074 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8748075 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8748076 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8748078 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8748079 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8748118 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8748239 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8748241 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
MozReview-Commit-ID: F5nI61L9rYe
Attachment #8748118 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748693 - Flags: review+
Depends on: 1270158
Comment on attachment 8747206 [details] [diff] [review] Turn RequestSync API to ChromeOnly r=fabrice sr=bz Dead API
Attachment #8747206 - Attachment is obsolete: true
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
Depends on: 1270790
Pref for Presentation DeviceInfo was removed. Restore it.
Attachment #8748075 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748693 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8750759 - Flags: review+
And pine as reference before removing RequestSync/KillSwitch APIs: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=62ecac29b6e4
Biggest pain point to deal with is going to be the mochitest-oop file from dom/browser-element/
Depends on: 1272270
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).
Attachment #8747199 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8750262 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748074 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747201 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747202 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747203 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747204 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747205 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747207 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747208 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748076 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8750759 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747210 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747211 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747212 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747213 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747214 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748078 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748079 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747216 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747217 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747218 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747219 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747220 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8748239 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747222 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747224 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747225 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached file th-logs.py (obsolete) —
Tool to extract test execution informations from a try push
Attached file th-logs.py
Attachment #8752856 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8752857 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8752858 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached patch try_bug1266035.diff (obsolete) — Splinter Review
diff between try tests executions collected with th-logs.py
Attached patch try_bug1266035.diff (obsolete) — Splinter Review
remove whitespace at the end of each line for easier reading
Attachment #8753334 - Attachment is obsolete: true
more context: more readable
Attachment #8753335 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8752771 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752771 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752773 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752773 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752776 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752776 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752777 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752777 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752778 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752778 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752783 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752783 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752784 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752784 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752785 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752785 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752786 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752786 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752789 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752789 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752791 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752791 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752792 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752792 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752794 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752794 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752797 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752797 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752799 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752799 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752801 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752801 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752803 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752803 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752806 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752806 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752807 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752807 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752808 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752808 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752809 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752809 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752810 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752810 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752812 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752812 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752814 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752814 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752815 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #8752815 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752811 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752805 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752804 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752802 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752800 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752798 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752796 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752795 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752790 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752787 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752782 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752781 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752775 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752774 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752772 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Fabrice, Boris, sorry in advance for the spammy set of reviews. The WebIDL changes should be easy to review :)
Attachment #8752771 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
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+
Attachment #8752776 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752777 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752778 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752783 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752784 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752785 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752786 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752789 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752791 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752792 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752794 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
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-
Attachment #8752799 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752801 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752803 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752806 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752807 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752808 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752809 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752812 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752814 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
Attachment #8752815 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
(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 :/
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?
Given bug 1207090 I think we want to expose to any chrome, no? Maybe we can just kill the pref then?
Ok, given dom/webidl/TCPSocket.webidl we were only limiting the scope of mozTCPSocket object, but the TCPSocket itself was still exposed to content :/
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)
Attachment #8752797 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8752798 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Seems about right to me, but check with jdm.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Josh, I need your confirmation regarding what is stated in comment 121, 124 and 126. Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(josh)
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)
Attachment #8752797 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8752798 - Attachment is obsolete: true
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)
Attachment #8753559 - Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #8753559 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
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+
Attachment #8753556 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8753556 - Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #8753556 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
Attachment #8753720 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #8753720 - Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #8753720 - Flags: review?(fabrice)
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)
Attachment #8752771 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752772 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752773 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752774 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752775 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752776 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752777 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752778 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752781 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752782 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752783 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752784 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752785 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752786 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752787 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752789 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752790 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752791 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752792 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752794 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752795 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752796 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752799 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752800 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752801 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752802 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752803 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752804 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752805 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752806 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752807 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752808 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752809 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752810 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752811 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752812 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752814 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8752815 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8753720 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Attachment #8753559 - Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
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+
Awesome, thanks!
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Blocks: 1274295
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 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+
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...
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
(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)
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 :)
Blocks: 1286530
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)
(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)
Blocks: 1310706
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: