1430305 - Implement ShadowRoot.fullscreenElement

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, enhancement, P3)

Description

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/#api

Comment 1

[Hsin-Yi Tsai (she/her) [:hsinyi]]

My understanding is that we could leave it after our 1st ship, mark P3 for now. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Comment 2

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Attachment: shadowdom_fullscreen.diff

remote: View your change here:
remote:   https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/172323f20ac940de4455b6b89d9eb6c547fea41a
remote: 
remote: Follow the progress of your build on Treeherder:
remote:   https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=172323f20ac940de4455b6b89d9eb6c547fea41a
remote: recorded changegroup in replication log in 0.045s

Comment 3

[Blake Kaplan (:mrbkap) (inactive)]

Comment on attachment 8947933 [details] [diff] [review]
shadowdom_fullscreen.diff

Review of attachment 8947933 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: dom/base/nsDocument.cpp
@@ +11174,5 @@
>      DispatchFullscreenError("FullscreenDeniedSubDocFullScreen");
>      return false;
>    }
> +  //XXXsmaug Note, we don't follow the latest fullscreen spec here.
> +  //         This whole check could be probably removed.

Is there a bug filed for this? Looking at the spec, this should basically just become an IsInComposedDoc?

Comment 4

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

There isn't, since after discussing with xidorn, it isn't even clear whether the spec will stay the way it is now, or whether it should be reverted to follow what implementations actually do.

Comment 5

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

In other words, the spec situation is messy.

Comment 6

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Hmm, looks like there is still some assertion to fix.

Comment 7

[Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] UTC+11]

(In reply to Olli Pettay [:smaug] from comment #4)
> There isn't, since after discussing with xidorn, it isn't even clear whether
> the spec will stay the way it is now, or whether it should be reverted to
> follow what implementations actually do.

I think the editor and I have consensus that we would revert the spec back to match impls on having hierarchy restriction. It is just that he doesn't have time to do the actual edit and work on related tests lately...

Comment 8

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Attachment: shadowdom_fullscreen_2.diff

Just fixing IsInUncomposedDoc -> IsInComposedDoc in an NS_ASSERTION and rebasing

Comment 9

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0babcbf5ff1e
Implement ShadowRoot.fullscreenElement , r=mrbkap

Comment 10

[Dorel Luca [:dluca]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0babcbf5ff1e

Comment 11

[Chris Mills [:cmills]]

As before, I've updated the docs to show this property as implemented on DocumentOrShadowRoot (but with the browser compat data saying it is still implemented on Document in most places):

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/DocumentOrShadowRoot
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/DocumentOrShadowRoot/fullscreenElement