Created attachment 536602 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1 - removing noscripts from nsIAbCard.idl Since I'm altering an interface (albeit only slightly), should I request super-review?
Assignee: nobody → mconley
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #536602 - Flags: review?(dbienvenu)
Comment on attachment 536602 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1 - removing noscripts from nsIAbCard.idl I'd extend the comment about js users to include the fact that js does the type conversion automatically.
Attachment #536602 - Flags: review?(dbienvenu) → review+
Created attachment 536710 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v2 Thanks for the review! I've updated the comments so that we mention that type conversion is performed by XPConnect automagically.
7 years ago
Comment on attachment 536710 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v2 Strictly speaking this should have sr as it is an API change. I'm happy with it though so sr=me. Although I have just noticed that the second part of the change breaks the comments around the grouped function, but I'll fix that on check in.
Attachment #536710 - Flags: superreview+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 7.0
What happens if some idiot extension author tries to use the previously noscript methods from JS? Do we recover gracefully from this misuse or will bad things happen?
If they use the appropriate function for the property, then it should still work I believe, though I'm not sure if it would affect perf using the alternate functions.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.