Closed
Bug 1345044
Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
Make init*Event() arguments optional except the first
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, enhancement, P3)
Core
DOM: Core & HTML
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla55
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox55 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: annevk, Assigned: smaug)
References
Details
Attachments
(3 files)
28.08 KB,
patch
|
stone
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
29.03 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
35.63 KB,
patch
|
smaug
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Updated•8 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P3
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•8 years ago
|
||
I think we should really make _all_ init*Events to follow the same pattern. The spec changes covered only parts.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•8 years ago
|
||
Indeed, follow-up issues were filed for the UI Events specification, but they're simply not fixed yet there. All init*Event() methods should work the same though.
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → bugs
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•8 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•8 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8844701 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
This is rather mechanical change.
I explicitly didn't want to change argument names or anything, so the coding style in different webidl files vary.
There might be some failing tests which need minor tweaking.
Attachment #8844701 -
Flags: review?(sshih)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•8 years ago
|
||
And tests should be coming from w3C wpt
Comment 6•8 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8844701 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Should CompositionEvent also be covered? Others are good to me. Thanks.
Attachment #8844701 -
Flags: review?(sshih) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•8 years ago
|
||
oh, fun. I do have the changes to CompositionEvent still in my editor, but apparently didn't click save.
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•8 years ago
|
||
And good catch!
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•8 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•8 years ago
|
||
Plenty of wpt failures.
I think better to wait for the wpt merge and then fix unexpected passes.
Comment 11•8 years ago
|
||
Do you want me to deal with the test failures for you?
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•8 years ago
|
||
Oh, bug 1345490 landed. I was hoping jgraham would have landed also this at the same time.
But if you can fix the unexpected passes, great.
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Comment 13•8 years ago
|
||
I have a green try run <https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=2869a57520517517bdb5b372abeb13d3d4cade70&selectedJob=88325633>, with one failure that's been fixed locally. Should I just push this, or do you want to review the test changes?
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•8 years ago
|
||
Why the additions to /testing/web-platform/meta/html/dom/interfaces.html.ini ?
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Comment 15•8 years ago
|
||
Because it wasn't updated for the spec change, so if I don't update it to match the new spec, we have new incorrect unexpected fails.
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•8 years ago
|
||
What spec change? How is stuff like
"Element interface: document.createElement("noscript") must inherit property "slot" with the proper type " related to this all?
Why is
+[NoInterfaceObject,
+ Exposed=Window]
+interface Slotable {
+ readonly attribute HTMLSlotElement? assignedSlot;
+};
+Element implements Slotable;
+Text implements Slotable;
added in this bug?
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Comment 17•8 years ago
|
||
I explained in the commit message:
> The change to
> untested-interfaces.idl is basically just copying updates from
> dom/interfaces.html, which created four new expected failures that are
> unrelated to the code changes here. (I didn't think the noise was
> enough to bother separating into a different commit.)
The test IDL change is not related to this bug, it's just updating the test to a more recent IDL from the spec. I could put that in a separate commit if you want. Then I'd have to add some expected failures and remove them in the next commit. I didn't do it because it was slightly more work and didn't seem to make a difference, but I can do it that way if you prefer.
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•8 years ago
|
||
What I would expect to see here is no idl changes, only changes to .ini files by removing the annotations that some tests fail.
Please don't merge random changes to a single changeset.
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Comment 19•8 years ago
|
||
Okay. How about this?
Comment 20•8 years ago
|
||
(The test updates are in a separate patch reviewed by jgraham.)
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•8 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8854421 [details] [diff] [review]
0001-Bug-1345044-Make-init-Event-arguments-optional-excep.patch
thanks
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
Attachment #8854421 -
Flags: review+
Comment 22•8 years ago
|
||
Pushed by ayg@aryeh.name:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9f385861a95e
Update an IDL file for spec change; r=jgraham
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5b25d7259b4f
Make init*Event() arguments optional except the first; r=stone
Comment 23•8 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9f385861a95e
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5b25d7259b4f
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
status-firefox55:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla55
Updated•6 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•