Remove unused aProxyService parameter from applyFilter method
Categories
(Core :: Networking, defect, P5)
Tracking
()
| Tracking | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| firefox77 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: kernp25, Assigned: sonakshisaxena1, Mentored)
Details
(Whiteboard: [necko-triaged])
Attachments
(3 files)
This parameter doesn't seem to be used.
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Seems to be used in at least one test.
In any case I'll leave it to the network team to triage this.
Updated•6 years ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•5 years ago
|
||
Hey [:valentin]
Shane suggested that aProxyService is being used in one of the test cases. Can you re-check its usage again?
I would like to take this up if it isn't being used.
Thanks!
Even if it's used in test files, this param isn't really needed. Just use the global pps defined at the top.
You need pps anyway to call methods like registerFilter/registerChannelFilter.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to kernp25 from comment #4)
Even if it's used in test files, this param isn't really needed. Just use the global pps defined at the top.
You need pps anyway to call methods like registerFilter/registerChannelFilter.
Thanks for clarifying!
I'll put up a patch for this soon :)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•5 years ago
|
||
Updated•5 years ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to kernp25 from comment #0)
This parameter doesn't seem to be used.
I've updated the patch for this bug, but unable to find your handle name under reviewers. Can you please check that?
But you must also wait, what [:valentin] is thinking about it.
Comment 9•5 years ago
|
||
Indeed, it doesn't seem to be necessary.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 10•5 years ago
|
||
It was also mentioned here that this param isn't really needed.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 11•5 years ago
|
||
Does this comment also needs to be updated?
Comment 12•5 years ago
|
||
Comment 13•5 years ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
Comment 14•5 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to kernp25 from comment #11)
Does this comment also needs to be updated?
Yes, that should also be updated. I missed it in the review.
Sonakshi, could you submit another patch for this?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 16•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Valentin Gosu [:valentin] (he/him) from comment #15)
(In reply to kernp25 from comment #11)
Does this comment also needs to be updated?
Yes, that should also be updated. I missed it in the review.
Sonakshi, could you submit another patch for this?
Sure, will do it asap.
Thanks for pointing out [:kernp25]
| Assignee | ||
Comment 17•5 years ago
|
||
Comment 18•5 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 19•5 years ago
|
||
There are two comments.
Maybe write the comments like so:
Use nsIProtocolProxyService::newProxyInfo to construct nsIProxyInfo objects.
Instead of removing it?
Comment 20•5 years ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
Comment 21•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to kernp25 from comment #19)
There are two comments.
Maybe write the comments like so:
Use nsIProtocolProxyService::newProxyInfo to construct nsIProxyInfo objects.
Instead of removing it?
True, maybe we can fix in a follow-up. Sonakshi, would you like to work on that too?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 22•5 years ago
|
||
Sure, will do asap.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 23•5 years ago
|
||
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 24•5 years ago
|
||
Comment 25•5 years ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
Description
•