Closed
Bug 1472491
Opened 3 years ago
Closed 3 years ago
Add tooling to lazily load content actors from JSMs based on events/messages/page loads
Categories
(Toolkit :: Async Tooling, enhancement)
Toolkit
Async Tooling
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla63
| Tracking | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| firefox63 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: kmag, Assigned: kmag)
References
(Depends on 2 open bugs, Blocks 6 open bugs)
Details
(Whiteboard: [overhead:100k][cpstartup:8ms][qf:p3:f64])
Attachments
(45 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
zombie
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
zombie
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
zombie
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
mossop
:
superreview+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
florian
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
jaws
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
adw
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
johannh
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
johannh
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Gijs
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mikedeboer
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mossop
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Gijs
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Felipe
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
markh
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
MattN
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
florian
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
florian
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Details | |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Gijs
:
review+
|
Details |
|
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
mconley
:
review+
|
Details |
|
46 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
mccr8
:
review+
|
Details | Review |
We've been working on reducing the amount of code that we load into content processes at startup, mostly by extracting special-purpose code into separate modules, and lazily loading it when it's needed. So far the work has mostly been ad-hoc, with special-purpose lazy loaders written for each module. But it's been useful for figuring out what kind of general-purpose lazy loaders we'll actually need. Separately from this, but somewhat overlapping it, we need to change the way we handle IPC for remote browsers, largely so that we can cleanly handle out-of-process iframes. That's going to require concrete actors at the frame and process levels, rather than one actor per top-level-frame. And in order to handle that new model efficiently, lazy loading will become even more important. In the relatively near future, all of these actors are going to need to be backed by native IPDL endpoints, and have defined sets of structured messages they can respond to. However, as a first step toward that eventual goal, I'm going to implement these as simple JS objects that can send and receive arbitrary messages, which can eventually be refined into strictly defined protocol actors.
Updated•3 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [overhead:noted]
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•3 years ago
|
||
With my current prototype, this winds up saving about 100K.
Whiteboard: [overhead:noted] → [overhead:100k]
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•3 years ago
|
||
This winds up being 44 changesets, but most of them are super trivial. I mostly split them up in case anyone needs to bisect failures in the future.
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment 47•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996524 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 2b - Add MozDocumentObserver class to notify on new pattern-matched documents. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260586/#review267678 Code analysis found 4 defects in this patch: - 4 defects found by clang-tidy You can run this analysis locally with: - `./mach static-analysis check path/to/file.cpp` (C/C++) If you see a problem in this automated review, please report it here: http://bit.ly/2y9N9Vx ::: toolkit/components/extensions/WebExtensionPolicy.cpp:601 (Diff revision 1) > + > +void > +DocumentObserver::Observe(const dom::Sequence<OwningNonNull<MozDocumentMatcher>>& matchers, ErrorResult& aRv) > +{ > + if (!EPS().RegisterObserver(*this)) { > + aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_FAILURE); Error: You must immediately return after calling this function [clang-tidy: mozilla-must-return-from-caller] aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_FAILURE); ^ ::: toolkit/components/extensions/WebExtensionPolicy.cpp:601 (Diff revision 1) > + > +void > +DocumentObserver::Observe(const dom::Sequence<OwningNonNull<MozDocumentMatcher>>& matchers, ErrorResult& aRv) > +{ > + if (!EPS().RegisterObserver(*this)) { > + aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_FAILURE); Error: You must immediately return after calling this function [clang-tidy: mozilla-must-return-from-caller] aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_FAILURE); ^ ::: toolkit/components/extensions/WebExtensionPolicy.cpp:606 (Diff revision 1) > + aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_FAILURE); > + } > + mMatchers.Clear(); > + for (auto& matcher : matchers) { > + if (!mMatchers.AppendElement(matcher, fallible)) { > + aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_OUT_OF_MEMORY); Error: You must immediately return after calling this function [clang-tidy: mozilla-must-return-from-caller] aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_OUT_OF_MEMORY); ^ ::: toolkit/components/extensions/WebExtensionPolicy.cpp:606 (Diff revision 1) > + aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_FAILURE); > + } > + mMatchers.Clear(); > + for (auto& matcher : matchers) { > + if (!mMatchers.AppendElement(matcher, fallible)) { > + aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_OUT_OF_MEMORY); Error: You must immediately return after calling this function [clang-tidy: mozilla-must-return-from-caller] aRv.Throw(NS_ERROR_OUT_OF_MEMORY); ^
| Assignee | ||
Comment 48•3 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8996523 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 2a - Split matching logic for content scripts into MozDocumentMatcher base class. Apparently I already got review for these in bug 1425104 and forgot.
Attachment #8996523 -
Flags: review?(tomica) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996524 -
Flags: review?(tomica) → review+
Comment 49•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996522 [details] Bug 1472491: Add [ChromeOnly] wantUntrusted event listener option. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260582/#review267680 ::: dom/events/EventTarget.h:294 (Diff revision 1) > /** > * A method to compute the right wantsUntrusted value for AddEventListener. > * This will call the above hook as needed. > */ > bool ComputeWantsUntrusted(const Nullable<bool>& aWantsUntrusted, > + const AddEventListenerOptionsOrBoolean* aOptions, Please document this argument (in particular what nullptr means).
Attachment #8996522 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Comment 50•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996564 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5λ - Add Split RemoteFinder into FinderChild and FinderParent actors. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260666/#review267698 ::: toolkit/modules/ActorManagerParent.jsm:159 (Diff revision 1) > FindBar: { > module: "resource://gre/modules/FindBar", > child: { > events: { > "keypress": {mozSystemGroup: true}, > }, > }, > }, > > + Finder: { > + module: "resource://gre/modules/Finder", > + child: { > + messages: [ > + "Finder:Initialize", > + ], > + }, > + }, It's a bit confusing we have both Finder and FindBar actors here. Follow-up bug to make that more sane? ::: toolkit/modules/moz.build (Diff revision 1) > -with Files('RemoteFinder.jsm'): > - BUG_COMPONENT = ('Toolkit', 'Find Toolbar') Nit: add FinderChild/FinderParent.jsm as files here instead?
Attachment #8996564 -
Flags: review?(gijskruitbosch+bugs) → review+
Comment 51•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996548 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5u - Add URIFixupChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260634/#review267704 Ugh, we should really move uri fixup that involves the search engine to the parent process instead, but that's not something for this bug.
Attachment #8996548 -
Flags: review?(gijskruitbosch+bugs) → review+
Comment 52•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996542 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5o - Add FindBarChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260622/#review267714 This made my head hurt. Thanks for cleaning this up. ::: toolkit/modules/FindBarContent.jsm:14 (Diff revision 1) > ChromeUtils.defineModuleGetter(this, "RemoteFinder", > "resource://gre/modules/RemoteFinder.jsm"); > ChromeUtils.defineModuleGetter(this, "Services", > "resource://gre/modules/Services.jsm"); > > /* Please keep in sync with toolkit/this.mm.content/widgets/findbar.xml */ wat?
Attachment #8996542 -
Flags: review?(gijskruitbosch+bugs) → review+
Comment 53•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996527 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 4b - Add lazy actor support to browser_all_files_referenced. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260592/#review267744 ::: browser/base/content/test/static/browser_all_files_referenced.js:429 (Diff revision 1) > // Make urls like chrome://browser/skin/ point to an actual file, > // and remove the ref if any. > + try { > - url = Services.io.newURI(url).specIgnoringRef; > + url = Services.io.newURI(url).specIgnoringRef; > + } catch (e) { > + continue; When do you expect this to throw? Could you please indicate it in a comment in the catch block?
Attachment #8996527 -
Flags: review?(florian) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 54•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996527 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 4b - Add lazy actor support to browser_all_files_referenced. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260592/#review267744 > When do you expect this to throw? Could you please indicate it in a comment in the catch block? It fails when trying to parse "chrome://mochitests/content/*"
| Assignee | ||
Comment 55•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996564 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5λ - Add Split RemoteFinder into FinderChild and FinderParent actors. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260666/#review267698 > It's a bit confusing we have both Finder and FindBar actors here. Follow-up bug to make that more sane? Yeah, I was thinking that too. > Nit: add FinderChild/FinderParent.jsm as files here instead? We already have a pattern for `Finder*.jsm`
| Assignee | ||
Comment 56•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996542 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5o - Add FindBarChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260622/#review267714 > wat? Er, sorry, search and replace fail...
Comment 57•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996547 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5t - Add ThumbnailsChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260632/#review267820
Attachment #8996547 -
Flags: review?(dtownsend) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 58•3 years ago
|
||
14:32:27 @Mossop | Does it take a 10% cut? According to Treeherder, it (and the related patches from the last day or so) cut 150-200KB off of base content memory, and add about 12K of overhead from ActorManagerChild code... So, I guess the answer is approximately "yes".
| Assignee | ||
Comment 59•3 years ago
|
||
This also shaves about 8ms off of cpstartup on Windows 64.
Whiteboard: [overhead:100k] → [overhead:100k][cpstartup:8ms][qf]
Comment 60•3 years ago
|
||
A quick note about possible wrapper's overhead. I identified a regression on ContentFrameMessageManager that roots all message's `data` objects to the frame script global, instead of the global of the listener passed to `addMessageListener` (see bug 1474843). I imagine Sandboxes and JSM are impected in the same way by this regression. So here, I'm expecting all `data` objects to be rooted to tab-content.js or browser-content.js frame script globals instead of `ActorManagerChild.jsm` global (where we do call `addMessageListener`). Then all IPC actor JSMs are going to have to go through crosscompartment wrappers whenever they access a `data` object. So in all the patches where you move code from one of these two content scripts to a JSM, I'm expecting to see a regression due to bug 1474843 and crosscompartment wrappers. But if we fix it, then, I imagine we can pass `data` object around all JSM without having any wrapper, right? Because all JSMs share the same global?
Comment 61•3 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. While I am reviewing the individual parts for correctness, the bug as a whole is a reasonably big shift into how the front-end code is written, so I don't want to be the sole responsible for giving it the green light. I think the overall approach needs a super-review or at least a second review by another peer.
Attachment #8996526 -
Flags: superreview?(dtownsend)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 62•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau] from comment #60) > A quick note about possible wrapper's overhead. > > I identified a regression on ContentFrameMessageManager that roots all > message's `data` objects to the frame script global, instead of the global > of the listener passed to `addMessageListener` (see bug 1474843). I imagine > Sandboxes and JSM are impected in the same way by this regression. > > So here, I'm expecting all `data` objects to be rooted to tab-content.js or > browser-content.js frame script globals instead of `ActorManagerChild.jsm` > global (where we do call `addMessageListener`). Then all IPC actor JSMs are > going to have to go through crosscompartment wrappers whenever they access a > `data` object. > So in all the patches where you move code from one of these two content > scripts to a JSM, I'm expecting to see a regression due to bug 1474843 and > crosscompartment wrappers. But if we fix it, then, I imagine we can pass > `data` object around all JSM without having any wrapper, right? Because all > JSMs share the same global? See bug 1480244. Getting rid of message manager globals is next on my todo list. In the mean time, there may be some minor performance and memory regressions from the extra wrapper overhead, but it should be more than offset by the improvements we get from lazy loading and document filtering.
Comment 63•3 years ago
|
||
[Calling this a QF p3, tentatively targeting 64-or-sooner. Looking forward to 8ms faster content process startup! :)]
Whiteboard: [overhead:100k][cpstartup:8ms][qf] → [overhead:100k][cpstartup:8ms][qf:p3:f64]
| Assignee | ||
Comment 64•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to :Felipe Gomes (needinfo me!) from comment #61) > Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] > Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. > > While I am reviewing the individual parts for correctness, the bug as a > whole is a reasonably big shift into how the front-end code is written, so I > don't want to be the sole responsible for giving it the green light. I think > the overall approach needs a super-review or at least a second review by > another peer. Fair enough. Although, too be clear, this approach has been discussed repeatedly since we started project Fission, and we agreed on the broad details at the meeting in Toronto earlier this year, which included other peers, including ehsan and mconley. I didn't dive this far into it with no input :)
Comment 65•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260590/#review268678 Unordered stream of thoughts: - I feel that the list of messages/modules to be registered is kinda out-of-place living in nsBrowserGlue.js and ActorManagerParent.jsm. It would be nice if there were two dedicated files to it (one in browser and another in toolkit), just for code organization and ease of documentation With this, you could even not use the sharedData and just access these jsms directly in the child. It would simplify the code and get rid of the whole flush() stuff. But I suspect you don't want to do that for memory purposes, right? If that's the case, then it's fine to keep the sharedData, but it doesn't break the point of having the lists in separate jsms. - I do think it's important to have the whole filename of the actors present in the code (and not do the concatenation). It's a bit more verbose but it helps in productivity afterwards. With the lists in a separate file with easy access to them, you can just write a test to enforce the naming convention that you want. - It would be nice if all these actors being created were added to a new separate folder, browser/actors. What do you think? browser/modules could be left for generic stuff, and then all the actors would be in browser/actors and toolkit/actors. (Hmmm, even nicer if they mapped to resource:///actors/* . wdyt?) - even though you already explained to me, I still didn't fully understand the difference to have the Singleton objects in the case where the matcher is used :P ::: browser/components/nsBrowserGlue.js:655 (Diff revision 1) > os.addObserver(this, "sync-ui-state:update"); > os.addObserver(this, "handlersvc-store-initialized"); > os.addObserver(this, "shield-init-complete"); > > + ActorManagerParent.addActors(ACTORS); > + ActorManagerParent.flush(); this flush() feels like something that shouldn't be the responsibility of the caller. There must be some notification that ActorManagerParent could listen to that gets called before the first child process is initiated `final-ui-startup` comes to mind as a good candidate. It would also be better as an API to document that addActors must be called before final-ui-startup, as that's more well defined. (vs. saying it must be called before a child process is initiated) (and flush() can be left to dynamic callers that might need to call it afterwards, like in tests.. although I'd rename it to update()) ::: toolkit/modules/ActorManagerParent.jsm:117 (Diff revision 1) > + this.observers = new DefaultMap(() => []); > + } > + > + addActor(actorName, actor, module) { > + actorName += this.process; > + this.actors.set(actorName, {module: `${module}${this.process}.jsm`}); nit: reminder to add a comment here or change the variable name to make it clear this is not about process type
Attachment #8996526 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Comment 66•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996549 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5v - Remove Browser:HideSessionRestoreButton listener. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260636/#review268984 Ah, this is from the old about:home, which was removed in bug 1409054, but I accidentally left this behind :P So no need to create the AboutHomeChild here at all, just remove this message listener. (note: since this was a very straightforward conversion, I linked this patch as an example in the e-mail I sent to firefox-dev)
Attachment #8996549 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review-
Comment 67•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996532 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5e - Add ContextMenuChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260602/#review268994 ::: browser/modules/ContextMenuChild.jsm:243 (Diff revision 1) > + static getTarget(global, message, key) { > + return contextMenus.get(global).getTarget(message, key); > + } > + we should somehow not forget to remove this if we add a way to get access to the actor's instance from outside
Attachment #8996532 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 68•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260590/#review268990 Generally sr=me on the approach, but why is the flush so necessary? ::: toolkit/modules/ActorManagerChild.jsm:15 (Diff revision 1) > + * ActorManagerParent.jsm for more information. > + */ > + > +var EXPORTED_SYMBOLS = ["ActorManagerChild"]; > + > +ChromeUtils.import("resource://gre/modules/ExtensionUtils.jsm"); IIRC this would work: const { ExtensionUtils: { DefaultMap }} = ... ::: toolkit/modules/ActorManagerChild.jsm:23 (Diff revision 1) > +const {DefaultMap} = ExtensionUtils; > + > +const {sharedData} = Services.cpmm; > + > +function getMessageManager(window) { > + return window.docShell.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIInterfaceRequestor) Update from bug 1479569
Attachment #8996526 -
Flags: review+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996531 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Attachment #8996531 -
Flags: review?(adw)
Attachment #8996531 -
Flags: feedback+
Comment 69•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996533 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5f - Add ClickHandlerChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260604/#review268996
Attachment #8996533 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 70•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996535 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5h - Add LightWeightThemeChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260608/#review268998
Attachment #8996535 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 71•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to :Felipe Gomes (needinfo me!) from comment #65) > Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] > Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. > > https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260590/#review268678 > > Unordered stream of thoughts: > > - I feel that the list of messages/modules to be registered is kinda > out-of-place living in nsBrowserGlue.js and ActorManagerParent.jsm. It > would be nice if there were two dedicated files to it (one in browser and > another in toolkit), just for code organization and ease of documentation I think this is the right place for them, for now. I eventually intend to add a way to specify manifests in moz.build files, so we can aggregate them at compile time, but in the mean time, I don't want to add more scripts that we have to load in every session. > With this, you could even not use the sharedData and just access these jsms > directly in the child. It would simplify the code and get rid of the whole > flush() stuff. We can't load the lists directly in the child without a build step. I'll probably add a build step at some point, but I'd rather avoid that for the initial implementation, and particularly until I know more about how the final JS IPDL and Fission actor APIs will look. But in the mean time, we need to pre-process the actor definitions so that they can be efficiently registered in each frame loader. The format they're specified in is easy for humans to maintain, but not ideal for the registration code. Using it directly would add about 2ms to each frame loader initialization (on a fast machine). That would still be much faster than what we have now, but is easily avoidable, so I'd rather avoid it. > - It would be nice if all these actors being created were added to a new > separate folder, browser/actors. What do you think? browser/modules could > be left for generic stuff, and then all the actors would be in > browser/actors and toolkit/actors. > > (Hmmm, even nicer if they mapped to resource:///actors/* . wdyt?) That would probably be sensible. > - even though you already explained to me, I still didn't fully understand > the difference to have the Singleton objects in the case where the matcher > is used :P The main difference is that the Singleton objects deal with a single actor definition, rather than multiple actors, and are tied to single pages rather than the entire life cycle of the frame loader. They're created when a matching page is loaded, destroyed when that page is destroyed, and inactive when the page is hidden. > ::: browser/components/nsBrowserGlue.js:655 > (Diff revision 1) > > os.addObserver(this, "sync-ui-state:update"); > > os.addObserver(this, "handlersvc-store-initialized"); > > os.addObserver(this, "shield-init-complete"); > > > > + ActorManagerParent.addActors(ACTORS); > > + ActorManagerParent.flush(); > > this flush() feels like something that shouldn't be the responsibility of > the caller. > > There must be some notification that ActorManagerParent could listen to that > gets called before the first child process is initiated > > `final-ui-startup` comes to mind as a good candidate. There is not. This has to happen before we create any frame message manager, which happens early, and does not have any corresponding notification. I don't love the flush() call, but I think it's a reasonable compromise for the initial implementation. In the future, I'd like us to be able to add dynamic actor registrations, which will require adding some new infrastructure to the frame loader code, but should make the explicit flushes unnecessary. > It would also be better as an API to document that addActors must be called > before final-ui-startup, as that's more well defined. (vs. saying it must be > called before a child process is initiated) final-ui-startup is irrelevant. It needs to happen before a frame message manager is created. (In reply to Dave Townsend [:mossop] from comment #68) > Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] > Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. > > https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260590/#review268990 > > Generally sr=me on the approach, but why is the flush so necessary? Complicated. See above. > ::: toolkit/modules/ActorManagerChild.jsm:15 > (Diff revision 1) > > + * ActorManagerParent.jsm for more information. > > + */ > > + > > +var EXPORTED_SYMBOLS = ["ActorManagerChild"]; > > + > > +ChromeUtils.import("resource://gre/modules/ExtensionUtils.jsm"); > > IIRC this would work: > > const { ExtensionUtils: { DefaultMap }} = ... It would, but I generally avoid destructuring the return value of Cu.import, since that's a module global which a) may expose symbols that we don't mean to export, and b) won't include lexical declarations, which the module loader takes special steps to be able to access. I have plans to change ChromeUtils.import() to return an exports object rather than the global by default, after which things like this will make more sense.
Comment 72•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996528 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5a - Add BrowserTabChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260594/#review269000 ::: browser/base/content/tab-content.js (Diff revision 1) > DOMFullscreenHandler.init(); > > -var UserContextIdNotifier = { > - init() { > - addEventListener("DOMWindowCreated", this); > - this.init = null; I hadn't seen https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/255640/#review262838 before, but I'm now wondering if this new approach doesn't revert the memory wins from that patch? ::: browser/base/content/tab-content.js (Diff revision 1) > - // We use the docShell because content.document can have been loaded before > - // setting the originAttributes. this comment sounds important but it wasn't kept in the new code location ::: browser/modules/BrowserTabChild.jsm:17 (Diff revision 1) > + switch (event.type) { > + case "DOMWindowCreated": nit: missing indentation inside the switch block ::: browser/modules/BrowserTabChild.jsm:42 (Diff revision 1) > + break; > + } > + } > + > + switchDocumentDirection(window = this.content) { > + // document.dir can also be "auto", in which case it won't change nit: missing one space of indent in this comment ::: browser/modules/BrowserTabChild.jsm:60 (Diff revision 1) > + if (this.docShell) { > + this.docShell.isAppTab = message.data.isAppTab; > + } the check for a null docshell was added in bug 1160104, because apparently session store could send this message too late. Does the new lifetime management done by the actor manager guarantees that docshell is non-null?
Attachment #8996528 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 73•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996556 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5γ - Add UITourChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260650/#review269002
Attachment #8996556 -
Flags: review+
Comment 74•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996562 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ι - Add LoginManagerChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260662/#review269004 ::: toolkit/components/passwordmgr/LoginManagerChild.jsm:19 (Diff revision 1) > +class LoginManagerChild extends ActorChild { > + constructor(mm) { > + super(mm); Is there a reason this isn't part of LoginManagerContent.jsm instead? It seems like every event will cause it to get loaded anyways so the separation seems to only add unnecessary indirection AFAICT.
Attachment #8996562 -
Flags: review?(MattN+bmo)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996546 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996550 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996551 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996552 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996553 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996554 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996555 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996556 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996557 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996558 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996559 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996560 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996561 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996562 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996563 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996565 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review?(mconley)
Comment 75•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996546 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5s - Add ZoomChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260630/#review269008
Attachment #8996546 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996553 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review?(markh)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996553 -
Flags: feedback+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996556 -
Flags: review?(mconley)
Attachment #8996562 -
Flags: review?(mconley)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996560 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review?(florian)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996561 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review?(florian)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996559 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review?(enndeakin)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996559 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 76•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996562 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ι - Add LoginManagerChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260662/#review269004 > Is there a reason this isn't part of LoginManagerContent.jsm instead? It seems like every event will cause it to get loaded anyways so the separation seems to only add unnecessary indirection AFAICT. I don't remember the exact reason now. I think the two main reasons were that I was trying to avoid invasive changes in this bug (and LoginManagerContent didn't match the current actor model very well), and that these listeners also did somethings with InsecurePasswordUtils, which didn't seem to really fit in LoginManagerContent, but which I also couldn't find a particularly good way to split out. There's also the possibility of splitting up/lazifying more of login manager content, though, and having a separate actor to handle lazily loading the parts that we need at any given moment would make that much easier. The DOMAutoComplete handler, for instance, involves code that mostly doesn't overlap with the logic required by the other handlers. And even when it's called, we can probably do some pre-filtering to prevent it from being loaded when we focus a non-username field. That said, I don't have that strong an opinion on it, and if you'd rather this all go into LoginManagerContent, I'd be OK with that. But I may move it to a separate bug, in that case.
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996560 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996561 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996562 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley)
Comment 77•3 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8996529 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5b - Add AboutReaderChild actor. f=felipe (since this is a large-ish chunk of code, could it be hg copied to preserve blame?)
Attachment #8996529 -
Flags: review?(jaws)
Attachment #8996529 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Attachment #8996529 -
Flags: feedback+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 78•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996528 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5a - Add BrowserTabChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260594/#review269000 > I hadn't seen https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/255640/#review262838 before, but I'm now wondering if this new approach doesn't revert the memory wins from that patch? Sort of, sort of not. The net effect is a major win, since we have many fewer of these init functions to begin with. And for actors that we load more than once, we come out ahead even for the init functions that we only call once, because we don't have to clone them into each message manager global before executing them. We kept a cached copy of those scripts in the shared JSM global, anyway, so we could re-use it when we executed the scripts the scripts in new frame loaders, so the nulling only got rid of the extra copy. In the new code, though, there is no extra copy. For scripts that we *don't* load more than once, well, we have some provisions for throwing away the cached copy when we're pretty sure the script will only be loaded once, but that doesn't apply to any of the things this patch touches. > this comment sounds important but it wasn't kept in the new code location It sounds like nonsense to me, which is why I dropped it. If it makes more sense to you, I can perhaps re-word it, but the docShell is the obvious place to fetch origin attributes from, so I'm not convinced it would add any value even if re-worded. > the check for a null docshell was added in bug 1160104, because apparently session store could send this message too late. > > Does the new lifetime management done by the actor manager guarantees that docshell is non-null? It guarantees that for singleton actors, since they go away when pages are hidden or destroyed (which happens when we tear down frame message managers), but not for other actors. We could manage that, by unregistering all listeners when we get an unload event on the message manager, but I'm not sure it's worth the overhead.
Comment 79•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996536 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5i - Add PluginChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260610/#review269024
Attachment #8996536 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 80•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996562 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ι - Add LoginManagerChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260662/#review269004 > I don't remember the exact reason now. I think the two main reasons were that I was trying to avoid invasive changes in this bug (and LoginManagerContent didn't match the current actor model very well), and that these listeners also did somethings with InsecurePasswordUtils, which didn't seem to really fit in LoginManagerContent, but which I also couldn't find a particularly good way to split out. > > There's also the possibility of splitting up/lazifying more of login manager content, though, and having a separate actor to handle lazily loading the parts that we need at any given moment would make that much easier. The DOMAutoComplete handler, for instance, involves code that mostly doesn't overlap with the logic required by the other handlers. And even when it's called, we can probably do some pre-filtering to prevent it from being loaded when we focus a non-username field. > > That said, I don't have that strong an opinion on it, and if you'd rather this all go into LoginManagerContent, I'd be OK with that. But I may move it to a separate bug, in that case. I guess the LoginManagerContent member variables `__formFillService` and `_messages` would have to move to being set in the constructor in order to be a `class` but that's not too bad. InsecurePasswordUtils is already used from LoginManagerContent so that wouldn't be too bad to move inside LMContent either. I'm not sure what other problems you'll encounter so it's hard to weigh the costs but I think having both LoginManagerContent.jsm and LoginManagerChild.jsm is confusing so that's my main concern. If you could try merge them then I think that would be good.
Comment 81•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996562 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ι - Add LoginManagerChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260662/#review269022 ::: toolkit/components/passwordmgr/LoginManagerChild.jsm:53 (Diff revision 1) > + switch (message.name) { > + case "RemoteLogins:fillForm": Nit: indent the `case` ::: toolkit/modules/ActorManagerParent.jsm:168 (Diff revision 1) > + LoginManager: { > + module: "resource://gre/modules/LoginManager", > + child: { > + messages: [ > + "RemoteLogins:fillForm", > + ], > + events: { > + "DOMAutoComplete": {}, > + "DOMFormHasPassword": {}, > + "DOMInputPasswordAdded": {}, > + }, Is this also going to be used for Android? If so, I think the Android listeners should be removed too.
Attachment #8996562 -
Flags: review?(MattN+bmo)
Comment 82•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996534 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5g - Add PageInfoChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260606/#review269026
Attachment #8996534 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 83•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996530 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5c - Add PageStyleChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260598/#review269030
Attachment #8996530 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996543 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer)
Attachment #8996543 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Attachment #8996543 -
Flags: feedback+
Comment 84•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996553 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5z - Add WebChannelChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260644/#review269034
Attachment #8996553 -
Flags: review?(markh) → review+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996537 -
Flags: review?(jhofmann)
Attachment #8996537 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Attachment #8996537 -
Flags: feedback+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996538 -
Flags: review?(jhofmann)
Attachment #8996538 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Attachment #8996538 -
Flags: feedback+
Comment 85•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996544 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5q - Add SelectChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260626/#review269036
Attachment #8996544 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 86•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260590/#review269120 ::: browser/components/BrowserComponents.manifest (Diff revision 1) > > component {eab9012e-5f74-4cbc-b2b5-a590235513cc} nsBrowserGlue.js > contract @mozilla.org/browser/browserglue;1 {eab9012e-5f74-4cbc-b2b5-a590235513cc} > category app-startup nsBrowserGlue service,@mozilla.org/browser/browserglue;1 application={ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384} application={aa3c5121-dab2-40e2-81ca-7ea25febc110} > component {d8903bf6-68d5-4e97-bcd1-e4d3012f721a} nsBrowserGlue.js > -#ifndef MOZ_MULET Can you file a bug (I couldn't find one) to remove MOZ_MULET from the tree?
Comment 87•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996529 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5b - Add AboutReaderChild actor. f=felipe https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260596/#review269124
Attachment #8996529 -
Flags: review?(jaws) → review+
Comment 88•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996554 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5α - Add DateTimePickerChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260646/#review269134
Attachment #8996554 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Comment 89•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996563 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5κ - Add ManifestMessagesChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260664/#review269136
Attachment #8996563 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Comment 90•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996555 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5β - Add ShieldFrameChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260648/#review269138
Attachment #8996555 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Comment 91•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996539 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5l - Add OfflineAppsChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260616/#review269142
Attachment #8996539 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 92•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996540 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5m - Add DOMFullscreenChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260618/#review269144
Attachment #8996540 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 93•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996541 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5n - Add AudioPlaybackChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260620/#review269148
Attachment #8996541 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 94•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996545 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5r - Add PrintingChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260628/#review269152
Attachment #8996545 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 95•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996557 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5δ - Add UnselectedTabHoverChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260652/#review269150 I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1482242 to eventually combine this stuff with our warming infrastructure since it's so similar.
Attachment #8996557 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Comment 96•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996552 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5y - Add PopupBlockingChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260642/#review269166
Attachment #8996552 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Comment 97•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996550 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5w - Add PageMetadataChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260638/#review269168 It's a little bit of a shame that we're losing the blame by cutting-and-pasting the actors over to new files, but at this point, it'd be pretty cruel to ask you to do a file copy on the frame scripts and carve the Actors out. So I won't. :)
Attachment #8996550 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 98•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Conley (:mconley) (:⚙️) from comment #97) > It's a little bit of a shame that we're losing the blame by > cutting-and-pasting the actors over to new files, but at this point, it'd be > pretty cruel to ask you to do a file copy on the frame scripts and carve the > Actors out. So I won't. :) I can still do it easily enough with `hg cp -A`, but I generally avoided `hg cp` except for patches where I was copying a large amount of code, because it makes rebasing a pain in the ass. I can go through before I land and add the copy metadata to the rest, though. It shouldn't be a problem at that point.
Comment 99•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996558 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ε - Add PurgeSessionHistoryChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260654/#review269230 ::: toolkit/modules/PurgeSessionHistoryChild.jsm:13 (Diff revision 1) > + if (message.name != "Browser:PurgeSessionHistory") { > + return; > + } Are we being just extra cautious here? Why the check?
Attachment #8996558 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Comment 100•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996559 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ζ - Add ControllersChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260656/#review269232
Attachment #8996559 -
Flags: review+
Comment 101•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996565 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5μ - Add WebNavigationChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260668/#review269234 ::: toolkit/modules/ActorManagerParent.jsm:298 (Diff revision 1) > + "WebNavigation:GoBack", > + "WebNavigation:GoForward", > + "WebNavigation:GotoIndex", > + "WebNavigation:LoadURI", > + "WebNavigation:Reload", > + "WebNavigation:SetOriginAttributes", > + "WebNavigation:Stop", Yay for starting a convention of putting these things in alphabetical order!
Attachment #8996565 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Comment 102•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996551 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5x - Add SelectionSourceChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260640/#review269236
Attachment #8996551 -
Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996559 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996560 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley) → feedback+
Comment 103•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996561 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5θ - Add WebRTCChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260660/#review269238 ::: browser/modules/moz.build (Diff revision 1) > - 'ContentWebRTC.jsm', > 'ContextMenuChild.jsm', > 'DOMFullscreenChild.jsm', > 'ExtensionsUI.jsm', > 'Feeds.jsm', > - 'FormSubmitObserver.jsm', This seems like an unrelated change.
Comment on attachment 8996561 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5θ - Add WebRTCChild actor. f=mconley Seems okay - though that FormSubmitObserver thing probably isn't supposed to be removed. I'm hoping florian can sign-off on this though since I'm pretty unfamiliar with the WebRTC code.
Attachment #8996561 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley) → feedback+
Comment on attachment 8996562 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ι - Add LoginManagerChild actor. f=mconley In general, this seems okay (beyond the things that MattN brought up). MattN should probably get the final call here.
Attachment #8996562 -
Flags: feedback?(mconley) → feedback+
Comment 106•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996537 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5j - Add BlockedSiteChild actor. f=felipe https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260612/#review269254 This looks good, thank you!
Attachment #8996537 -
Flags: review?(jhofmann) → review+
Comment on attachment 8996559 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ζ - Add ControllersChild actor. Enn is going on PTO, and I'm pretty certain my review here is sufficient.
Attachment #8996559 -
Flags: review?(enndeakin)
Comment 108•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996538 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5k - Add NetErrorChild actor. f=felipe https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260614/#review269256 NetError code is so messy gah :| Had a question about handling clicks there but it's nothing I need to approve again I think, r=me with that resolved. Thanks! ::: browser/modules/ClickHandlerChild.jsm:32 (Diff revision 1) > return; > } > > // Handle click events from about pages > if (event.button == 0) { > - if (this.mm.AboutNetAndCertErrorListener.isAboutCertError(ownerDoc)) { > + if (ownerDoc.documentURI.startsWith("about:blocked")) { I don't really understand this change. ClickHandlerChild is still receiving events for all about: pages, right? Don't we still want to return early for about:certerror and about:neterror here? If this is correct please at least combine the two if-statements. ::: browser/modules/NetErrorChild.jsm:506 (Diff revision 1) > + frameDocShell && frameDocShell.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIWebNavigation); > + if (!frameDocShell || !this.isAboutCertError(frameDocShell.document)) { > + return; > + } > + > + this.onCertErrorDetails(this.mm, msg, frameDocShell); onCertErrorDetails does not seem to use its first argument, so you might as well remove it.
Attachment #8996538 -
Flags: review?(jhofmann) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 109•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996561 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5θ - Add WebRTCChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260660/#review269238 > This seems like an unrelated change. Urgh. Yeah, rebase botch.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 110•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996558 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5ε - Add PurgeSessionHistoryChild actor. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260654/#review269230 > Are we being just extra cautious here? Why the check? It's mostly just informative, to be honest. I generally prefer all message/event/observer callbacks to have some reference to the thing they're listening for to make it clearer to people reading the code, and to make it easier to search for. It could just be a comment rather than an explicit check, but comments tend to get out of sync, and they don't work as well with code search tools when searching for strings.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 111•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996538 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5k - Add NetErrorChild actor. f=felipe https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260614/#review269256 Agreed, it is messy. Hopefully it will be a bit easier to maintain now that it's untangled from the rest of the content scripts, though. > I don't really understand this change. ClickHandlerChild is still receiving events for all about: pages, right? Don't we still want to return early for about:certerror and about:neterror here? > > If this is correct please at least combine the two if-statements. It is still receiving events for all about pages, yes, but there's no reason to special case about:neterror or about:certerror here. The default click handler doesn't have any ill effects, and if it did, we'd want to handle them by having click handlers for those pages that just call preventDefault on the events.
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Assignee | ||
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996526 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Attachment #8996549 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Attachment #8996562 -
Flags: review?(MattN+bmo)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996549 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996526 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Comment 156•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996531 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5d - Add ContentSearchChild actor. f=felipe https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260600/#review269294
Attachment #8996531 -
Flags: review?(adw) → review+
Comment 157•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996549 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5v - Remove Browser:HideSessionRestoreButton listener. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260636/#review269302 nit: please also remove this message being sent in browser.js
Attachment #8996549 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 158•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996526 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260590/#review269304
Attachment #8996526 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 159•3 years ago
|
||
This message is necessary to initialize the IPC sharedData structures in every content process. If any JS code tries to access cpmm.sharedData before it has been processed, the process crashes. As happens on OS-X record-replay tests when trying to land these patches.
Comment 160•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996543 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5p - Add ExtFindChild actor. f=felipe https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260624/#review269346
Attachment #8996543 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer) → review+
Comment 161•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996561 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5θ - Add WebRTCChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260660/#review269372 Looks good to me. Note: this has pretty good test coverage in the browser/base/content/test/webrtc folder, so if tests still pass, I'm pretty confident this can't be dramatically broken. ::: browser/modules/moz.build (Diff revision 2) > 'ContentObservers.js', > 'ContentSearch.jsm', > - 'ContentWebRTC.jsm', > 'ExtensionsUI.jsm', > 'Feeds.jsm', > - 'FormSubmitObserver.jsm', Removing 'FormSubmitObserver.jsm' seems unrelated to this patch.
Attachment #8996561 -
Flags: review?(florian) → review+
Comment 162•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996560 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5η - Add BrowserChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260658/#review269370 ::: toolkit/actors/BrowserChild.jsm:16 (Diff revision 2) > +ChromeUtils.defineModuleGetter(this, "BrowserUtils", > + "resource://gre/modules/BrowserUtils.jsm"); > + > +class BrowserChild extends ActorChild { > + handleEvent(event) { > + if (event.type == "DOMWindowClose") { Is the event.isTrusted check no longer needed? If so, why?
Attachment #8996560 -
Flags: review?(florian) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 163•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8996560 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 5η - Add BrowserChild actor. f=mconley https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260658/#review269370 > Is the event.isTrusted check no longer needed? If so, why? It is not, and it never was. Chrome event listeners never fire for untrusted events unless you ask for them.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 164•3 years ago
|
||
This message is necessary to initialize the IPC sharedData structures in every content process. If any JS code tries to access cpmm.sharedData before it has been processed, the process crashes. As happens on OS-X record-replay tests when trying to land these patches.
Comment 165•3 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8999701 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 0 - Process UpdateSharedData message in middle man process. r?mccr8 Andrew McCreight [:mccr8] has approved the revision.
Attachment #8999701 -
Flags: review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 166•3 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/823dbd89637cf9c0847de7957932220bcc6905a0 Bug 1472491: Part 1 - Add [ChromeOnly] wantUntrusted event listener option. r=bz https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5479607a771acc685552de2b7f968c0c64cc2358 Bug 1472491: Part 2a - Split matching logic for content scripts into MozDocumentMatcher base class. r=zombie https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/761dcb3fa4e90fe6e500671ca8123c6dae96103e Bug 1472491: Part 2b - Add MozDocumentObserver class to notify on new pattern-matched documents. r=zombie https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c3649a09b92e57555e71e8c2f0b4308c18dc252b Bug 1472491: Part 4a - Add helper classes for lazily loading JS IPC actors. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/80ebfef17da585c25ac4f73e8d78d38bd1662253 Bug 1472491: Part 4b - Add lazy actor support to browser_all_files_referenced. r=florian https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/66c5f71e12c6df95c8e3e1e63083d59c7f77c7d8 Bug 1472491: Part 5a - Add BrowserTabChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/a7d69dc796d1fec209805c1dc9b0875f1b3ef056 Bug 1472491: Part 5b - Add AboutReaderChild actor. r=jaws f=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/271ac4e75c900d5a41602ca7de1c1b9823385e34 Bug 1472491: Part 5c - Add PageStyleChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/13dc8b7b72f3fc5f774a00335f68c4815338ff07 Bug 1472491: Part 5d - Add ContentSearchChild actor. r=adw f=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/4ec3a9d01b242ed4054a319f43a50dfbbaa6d99c Bug 1472491: Part 5e - Add ContextMenuChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f1e08d7ed69ebdc3614ddd2d2a9547994e0a2f73 Bug 1472491: Part 5f - Add ClickHandlerChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9359b425ceaf244112a155533cd1cc6877b22028 Bug 1472491: Part 5g - Add PageInfoChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/923c346f02128f4498a7ca102ec75b4ee1aef2fa Bug 1472491: Part 5h - Add LightWeightThemeChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0fbc93e84af5cfc0ce57f3c0bf3189bfcf20af74 Bug 1472491: Part 5i - Add PluginChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/17440776f078aa0219f72e97ce88f0b7a1217b30 Bug 1472491: Part 5j - Add BlockedSiteChild actor. r=johannh f=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0196bac4114b13c869f57cad22d922920a5b8180 Bug 1472491: Part 5k - Add NetErrorChild actor. r=johannh f=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/58587e163a5912cf56164a3f4af43a8d114913be Bug 1472491: Part 5l - Add OfflineAppsChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1dc5ef9b4bf34df0e28be99e5736f6a744b96696 Bug 1472491: Part 5m - Add DOMFullscreenChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/750cdb02923bb544ca7b38e606e87c6d35e0d74b Bug 1472491: Part 5n - Add AudioPlaybackChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b1c2735a9a17f0dc87946f564f3981ba671b06ce Bug 1472491: Part 5o - Add FindBarChild actor. r=gijs https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/733c55bf5fe8e6348ad2020a3a863d01c88ab2f3 Bug 1472491: Part 5q - Add SelectChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/cddc9e0db0d65c9d9c9a6a37ec489c59da50c929 Bug 1472491: Part 5r - Add PrintingChild actor. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/2bb9468f5609918be8a635fec650f55ca89666c5 Bug 1472491: Part 5s - Add ZoomChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/7c87ed2a2a357f965f071bab78149d970a01e164 Bug 1472491: Part 5t - Add ThumbnailsChild actor. r=Mossop https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/7699b1ced009a10ec61806cd6fdbc339c304106d Bug 1472491: Part 5u - Add URIFixupChild actor. r=gijs https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/a3e7ca5cf109f0db99b3179e62c073a090201218 Bug 1472491: Part 5v - Remove Browser:HideSessionRestoreButton listener. r=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/3925f3d433172e3edd02cf0dbd28a24d354627a3 Bug 1472491: Part 5w - Add PageMetadataChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/795a767014f36aad7a9d890b0d894053e89d6a65 Bug 1472491: Part 5x - Add SelectionSourceChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9b635ae98f46f7431fd5e95ba38d5454e18bf7b9 Bug 1472491: Part 5y - Add PopupBlockingChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/868162b370c877ef1ac9c9129010bcfe914ad0ed Bug 1472491: Part 5z - Add WebChannelChild actor. r=markh f=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/28f69e0977c46d9df90fa3284c2b57dd946f7d52 Bug 1472491: Part 5α - Add DateTimePickerChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/83ab8ab55813ca7a63155acdfddf629ffd4546b9 Bug 1472491: Part 5β - Add ShieldFrameChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c209596f78c2a5401671dc34545bf3cd4e49dfee Bug 1472491: Part 5γ - Add UITourChild actor. r=MattN https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b683542cac352cb84c409aa52827accc0669a856 Bug 1472491: Part 5δ - Add UnselectedTabHoverChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/2d586e4a214e2e03b7c596872691f57acf240dcb Bug 1472491: Part 5ε - Add PurgeSessionHistoryChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1194a1b4bf239c861da8f8f89ab5e8dacb68848c Bug 1472491: Part 5ζ - Add ControllersChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1e3e2acebb2c832fbcc04ed64be7b9bb35941b0c Bug 1472491: Part 5κ - Add ManifestMessagesChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/6e04b88dde43abfeb8a2ee3fe21c561a79f6c1e9 Bug 1472491: Part 5λ - Add Split RemoteFinder into FinderChild and FinderParent actors. r=gijs https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c7b959b74404be51b72134222c8be46e2d8ad5a9 Bug 1472491: Part 5μ - Add WebNavigationChild actor. r=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/100500156e86ffbdea5439283c394a3ddf6c4e15 Bug 1472491: Part 5p - Add ExtFindChild actor. r=mikedeboer f=felipe https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/4da0eca21e18abbef9cebc5f0744ddc9384f5c26 Bug 1472491: Part 5η - Add BrowserChild actor. r=florian f=mconley https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/8920abb9801dcf5a330485b7393dce3265487660 Bug 1472491: Part 5θ - Add WebRTCChild actor. r=florian f=mconley
| Assignee | ||
Comment 167•3 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/69e6aadbb2299dd10a54759850d9cf6fc5b18585 Bug 1472491: Follow-up: Add bug component to actors/ directories. r=bustage,npotb CLOSED TREE
Comment 168•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996525 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 3 - Fix flaky browser_ext_menus_events test. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260588/#review269452
Attachment #8996525 -
Flags: review?(tomica) → review+
Comment 169•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996523 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 2a - Split matching logic for content scripts into MozDocumentMatcher base class. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260584/#review269454
Attachment #8996523 -
Flags: review?(tomica) → review+
Comment 170•3 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8996524 [details] Bug 1472491: Part 2b - Add MozDocumentObserver class to notify on new pattern-matched documents. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/260586/#review269456
Attachment #8996524 -
Flags: review?(tomica) → review+
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8996526 -
Flags: superreview?(dtownsend) → superreview+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 171•3 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/2ceb7952766db7caf602bc5f09427bb973cd1017 Bug 1472491: Follow-up: Add missing CC trace for document observer hashtable. r=me
| Assignee | ||
Comment 172•3 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/cb79c9adc1a6c772550702399bdfb3d0d3417966 Bug 1472491: Part 0 - Process UpdateSharedData message in middle man process. r=mccr8
Comment 173•3 years ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/823dbd89637c https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5479607a771a https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/761dcb3fa4e9 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c3649a09b92e https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/80ebfef17da5 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/66c5f71e12c6 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/a7d69dc796d1 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/271ac4e75c90 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/13dc8b7b72f3 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4ec3a9d01b24 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f1e08d7ed69e https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9359b425ceaf https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/923c346f0212 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0fbc93e84af5 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/17440776f078 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0196bac4114b https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/58587e163a59 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1dc5ef9b4bf3 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/750cdb02923b https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b1c2735a9a17 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/733c55bf5fe8 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cddc9e0db0d6 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2bb9468f5609 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/7c87ed2a2a35 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/7699b1ced009 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/a3e7ca5cf109 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3925f3d43317 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/795a767014f3 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9b635ae98f46 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/868162b370c8 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/28f69e0977c4 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/83ab8ab55813 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c209596f78c2 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b683542cac35 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2d586e4a214e https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1194a1b4bf23 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1e3e2acebb2c https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6e04b88dde43 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c7b959b74404 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/100500156e86 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4da0eca21e18 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8920abb9801d https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/69e6aadbb229 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2ceb7952766d https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cb79c9adc1a6
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla63
Comment 174•3 years ago
|
||
I see some perf improvements here: == Change summary for alert #15029 (as of Wed, 15 Aug 2018 21:56:57 GMT) == Improvements: 10% tpaint osx-10-10 opt e10s stylo 291.09 -> 260.85 For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=15029
Updated•3 years ago
|
Attachment #8999491 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•