Allow clients to bypass the url-classifier

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla1.9beta3

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
11 years ago
10 years ago

People

(Reporter: dcamp, Assigned: dcamp)

Tracking

Trunk
mozilla1.9beta3
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Assignee)

Description

11 years ago
Created attachment 299076 [details] [diff] [review]
v1

The attached patch adds a LOAD_FLAG_BYPASS_CLASSIFIER load flag, which will do pretty much what it says it will.  This is needed by a few bugs (413717, 400731).

Since this will allow unchecked urls into the cache, I changed the check;  the classifier will only skip cached urls if it's been previously tagged as checked by the classifier.
Attachment #299076 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 299076 [details] [diff] [review]
v1

>+    return (strcmp(tag.get(), "1") == 0);

Please use EqualsLiteral() here.

Get Christian to OK the cache stuff?  I don't recall enough about HTTP to tell whether it's right.

Also get him to OK adding a webnav flag for this?
Attachment #299076 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
(Assignee)

Updated

11 years ago
Attachment #299076 - Flags: superreview?(cbiesinger)
Comment on attachment 299076 [details] [diff] [review]
v1

+nsClassifierCallback::CheckEntryTag()

maybe this should be named HasBeenClassified() to make it clearer what it does/what the return value means?


sr=biesi

I wish the webnav/docshell load flags weren't such a mess...
Attachment #299076 - Flags: superreview?(cbiesinger) → superreview+
I don't think you meant bug 413717...
(Assignee)

Updated

11 years ago
Blocks: 413737
No longer blocks: 413717
(Assignee)

Comment 4

11 years ago
Created attachment 299861 [details] [diff] [review]
addressed review comments

asking for approval - This is needed by at least one blocker (400731), and the cache tagging bit is probably a good idea to take anyway.
Attachment #299076 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #299861 - Flags: approval1.9?
Comment on attachment 299861 [details] [diff] [review]
addressed review comments

a1.9+=damons
Attachment #299861 - Flags: approval1.9? → approval1.9+
(Assignee)

Comment 6

11 years ago
Checking in base/nsDocShell.cpp;
/cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsDocShell.cpp,v  <--  nsDocShell.cpp
new revision: 1.882; previous revision: 1.881
done
Checking in base/nsDocShell.h;
/cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsDocShell.h,v  <--  nsDocShell.h
new revision: 1.220; previous revision: 1.219
done
Checking in base/nsDocShellLoadTypes.h;
/cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsDocShellLoadTypes.h,v  <--  nsDocShellLoadTypes.h
new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5
done
Checking in base/nsIDocShell.idl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsIDocShell.idl,v  <--  nsIDocShell.idl
new revision: 1.96; previous revision: 1.95
done
Checking in base/nsIWebNavigation.idl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsIWebNavigation.idl,v  <--  nsIWebNavigation.idl
new revision: 1.27; previous revision: 1.26
done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9beta3
Version: unspecified → Trunk
So I just realized that this flag that got added here is outside the range of allowed webnavigation flags, no?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.