Cross-origin isolated processes should be better identified in about:processes
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Content Processes, enhancement)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox80 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: annevk, Assigned: brunobrt, Mentored)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: good-first-bug, Whiteboard: [lang=C++])
Attachments
(2 files)
As far as I can tell the name of a Fission process is registrable.domain (webIsolated)
and a cross-origin isolated process is registrable.domain (web)
. (A non-Fission process is just web
.)
Something like registrable.domain (COOP+COEP)
for a cross-origin isolated process would be clearer. We could also use registrable.domain (crossOriginIsolated)
though using origin might be confusing as we don't (yet) use that as our process boundary for these processes.
Comment 1•4 years ago
•
|
||
There seems to be a trivial bug in ChromeUtils::RequestProcInfo
. We test whether web
is a prefix before testing whether webCOOP+COEP
is a prefix. We just need to change the order.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•4 years ago
|
||
It's my first time here, could I work on this bug?
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•4 years ago
|
||
Yeah, https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/base/ChromeUtils.cpp#842 is the code you would have to change I think (by placing the COOP_COEP check before that check).
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•4 years ago
|
||
Since this is my first time contributing, I'm still a little lost. I manage to download and build the source code, working with mozilla-unified. Here are the steps I made:
1- hg bookmark bug1649689
2- fix the file
3- hg commit -m "Bug 1649686 - Test whether webCOOP+COEP is a prefix before testing whether web is a prefix"
Is there it? am I missing a step somewhere?
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Bruno Bartolomasi from comment #4)
Since this is my first time contributing, I'm still a little lost. I manage to download and build the source code, working with mozilla-unified. Here are the steps I made:
1- hg bookmark bug1649689
2- fix the file
3- hg commit -m "Bug 1649686 - Test whether webCOOP+COEP is a prefix before testing whether web is a prefix"Is that it? am I missing a step somewhere?
Comment 6•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Bruno Bartolomasi from comment #4)
Since this is my first time contributing, I'm still a little lost. I manage to download and build the source code, working with mozilla-unified. Here are the steps I made:
1- hg bookmark bug1649689
2- fix the file
3- hg commit -m "Bug 1649686 - Test whether webCOOP+COEP is a prefix before testing whether web is a prefix"Is there it? am I missing a step somewhere?
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for contributing! I am not the purpose that you bookmarked bug1649689. Otherwise, they look good!
The steps I would suggest are:
hg pull central
Pull the latest code on the centralhg update central
Update to the top of it- Fix the file
hg commit -m "....."
./mach bootstrap
Update tools for building the code./mach build
Build the code- Push to try (But, I assume that you don't have permission to do that at the moment. So please skip this step if that's true. We can help you to do this step later)
moz-phab submit . .
Submit the patch to Phabricator and you can also usearc
as an alternative tool if you prefer to. (Note that two arguments aftersubmit
represent from the source commit to the destination commit. And.
represent the commit that you are on.)- Send the review request to someone on Phabricator.
Hy, I'm newbie to open source contributions. Can anyone help me out to get started with it?
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•4 years ago
|
||
Updated•4 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•4 years ago
|
||
Depends on D83386
(In reply to Soumya from comment #7)
Hy, I'm newbie to open source contributions. Can anyone help me out to get started with it?
Hi, and welcome to mozilla!
This specific bug is already handled by brunobrt, but I'm sure we can find something else for you to work on :)
Could you join us on #Introduction? That's the chat where we help new contributors!
Updated•4 years ago
|
Bruno, there was a conflict between your patch and another patch, so we couldn't land them at the same time.
I've resolved the conflict, let's see if we can land this now!
Comment 12•4 years ago
|
||
Comment 13•4 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Description
•