1599612 - Remove methods that only return NS_OK

Status: REOPENED

(Core :: XPCOM, defect, P3)

Description

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

(And don't need that for XPCOM / other shenanigans)

Comment 1

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

Attachment: Bug 1599612 - SillyResultReturnChecker.

This checks for non-virtual methods that just return NS_OK.

Just warns, because there's too much stuff going on at the moment.

Comment 2

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

Attachment: Bug 1599612 - HACK: Get less warnings.

This reduces a bit the noise.

Depends on D54824

Comment 3

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

Attachment: Bug 1599612 - Various dom/presentation code is infallible. r=kershaw

More could be cleaned up still, but this code seems disabled.

Comment 4

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/202664cc6623
Various dom/presentation code is infallible. r=kershaw

Comment 5

[Noemi Erli[:noemi_erli]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/202664cc6623

Comment 6

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

Whoops, that patch was posted to the wrong bug.

Comment 7

[Ethan Tseng [:ethan]]

Emilio, do you have any updates on this bug? Is there a better Bugzilla component for it other than Core: General?

Comment 8

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

This is useful to clean up very nsresult-happy stuff, but it's not particularly urgent so I'm doing more prioritary stuff atm.

Core: General seems appropriate, individual bugs should go in more specific components.

Comment 9

[Andrew McCreight [:mccr8]]

I think Ethan is asking because he's trying to reduce the number of bugs in Core: General. I think XPCOM is probably a better component, as NS_OK is an XPCOM thing, though as you said the individual bugs will end up in other components.

Comment 10

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

The following patch is waiting for review from an inactive reviewer:

ID	Title	Author	Reviewer Status
D54824	Bug 1599612 - SillyResultReturnChecker.	emilio	andi: Resigned from review

:emilio, could you please find another reviewer or abandon the patch if it is no longer relevant?

For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.