Open Bug 1449622 Opened 7 years ago Updated 3 years ago

Remove ActorRegistry actor

Categories

(DevTools :: Framework, enhancement, P3)

enhancement

Tracking

(Not tracked)

People

(Reporter: ochameau, Assigned: ochameau)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

Actor registry was added to support adding actors at runtime. It was only used by bootstrapless/addon-sdk addons. DevTools is not using this, so it should be safe removing this. https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/devtools/server/actors/actor-registry.js#32 This is the only add-on using "setupInChild": https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/devtools/server/main.js#937
Assignee: nobody → poirot.alex
Oh. I missed this important usage: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/devtools/client/shared/test/test-actor-registry.js#19-29 That allows using this actor for tests: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/devtools/client/shared/test/test-actor.js It was originally introduced for luciddream, in order to make tests be able to run against remote targets and not only firefox tabs. Using an actor/front is quite similar to using ContentTask, except that it can work against any target. * Is it worth keeping this complex ActorRegistry for that? * Can we somehow still use actors for tests but with a simplier code? * Is it worth keeping actors/fronts instead of ContentTask? There is only 5 tests using this test actor. In bug 1444064 I would like to have ContentTask, but connected to a browser toolbox, may be that's a better/easier pattern?
(In reply to Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau] from comment #4) > It was originally introduced for luciddream, in order to make tests be able > to run against remote targets and not only firefox tabs. > Using an actor/front is quite similar to using ContentTask, except that it > can work against any target. Alex and I discussed this during a meeting today. We no longer see the value of this TestActor approach and would prefer offering ContentTask-like approaches for future testing needs. In addition, setupInChild and ActorRegistry are hard to justify for just this one thing alone. So, assuming only a few tests are involved, we should convert them away from TestActor and then remove these things.
(In reply to J. Ryan Stinnett [:jryans] (use ni?) (on PTO May 10 - 14) from comment #5) > So, assuming only a few tests are involved, we should > convert them away from TestActor and then remove these things. When luciddream was current, I spent quite a bit of time converting a lot of inspector tests to the TestActor. So, this won't be an easy conversion.
Severity: normal → enhancement
Priority: -- → P3
Product: Firefox → DevTools
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: