Closed
Bug 501593
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
update TestXPC to use Request Model
Categories
(Core :: XPConnect, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: timeless, Assigned: timeless)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
|
14.46 KB,
patch
|
timeless
:
review+
timeless
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
for a long time, gecko conspired with spidermonkey to give a free pass from the request model to js code running on the main thread, as long as it didn't try to pass the context to another thread.
i can't remember when spidermonkey revoked that pass, but it was a while ago, and no one updated the tests.
i just need someone to confirm that i've used the request model correctly.
note that this runs w/o fails, it does get plenty of assertions ("Script compiled without principals").
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: superreview?(brendan)
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: review?(brendan)
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 386225 [details] [diff] [review]
use requests
I owe jorendorff a review and I am out on paternity leave, so redirecting to Jason.
/be
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: superreview?(jorendorff)
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: superreview?(brendan)
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: review?(jorendorff)
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: review?(brendan)
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 386225 [details] [diff] [review]
use requests
Thanks for updating these.
In the new EvaluateScript function, please do printf("%s", msg);. I think gcc warns about that otherwise.
In TestArgFormatter, it looks like you could just declare the AutoRequest at the top and stay in a request for the duration of the function. Then you could avoid the do-while(0) loop. That approach might also work in TestSecurityManager. I didn't look closely.
Would you be willing to s/%%/%/ and again use printf("%s", msg) instead of a plain printf(msg)?
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: review?(jorendorff) → review+
Updated•17 years ago
|
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: superreview?(jorendorff) → superreview?(mrbkap)
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 386225 [details] [diff] [review]
use requests
I meant to say, r=me with those changes, and once again thanks for the patch.
I'm not a superreviewer; maybe mrbkap...?
Updated•17 years ago
|
Attachment #386225 -
Flags: superreview?(mrbkap) → superreview+
i've decided not to broaden the autorequests, i'm treating them as units and for tests this is perfectly fine.
Attachment #386225 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #389590 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #389590 -
Flags: review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•