Open
Bug 1449622
Opened 7 years ago
Updated 3 years ago
Remove ActorRegistry actor
Categories
(DevTools :: Framework, enhancement, P3)
DevTools
Framework
Tracking
(Not tracked)
NEW
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 | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → poirot.alex
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (obsolete) |
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
(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
Updated•7 years ago
|
Product: Firefox → DevTools
Updated•3 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•