Morph nsIAccessNode::uniqueId

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla11

Status

()

Core
Disability Access APIs
RESOLVED FIXED
6 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: surkov, Assigned: Atul Aggarwal)

Tracking

(Blocks: 1 bug, {access})

unspecified
mozilla11
access
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: [bk1])

Attachments

(1 attachment, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

6 years ago
I realize uniqueId can be interesting for automated testing so it makes sense to keep it. But then it should be scriptable. We could cast void* to int to workaround it.
(In reply to comment #0)
> I realize uniqueId can be interesting for automated testing so it makes
> sense to keep it. But then it should be scriptable. We could cast void* to

do we want to use it in our tests? or who do  we expect to be writing tests that want this?

> int to workaround it.

that won't work on 64 bbit platforms.   since all current machines have atmost a 48 bit virtual address psace afaik we ight be able to use a double, I'm not sure if there will be any colisions or not.  Otherwise I suppose we could return 2 ints.
(Reporter)

Comment 2

6 years ago
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I realize uniqueId can be interesting for automated testing so it makes
> > sense to keep it. But then it should be scriptable. We could cast void* to
> 
> do we want to use it in our tests? or who do  we expect to be writing tests
> that want this?

Yes, in out tests.

> > int to workaround it.
> 
> that won't work on 64 bbit platforms.   since all current machines have
> atmost a 48 bit virtual address psace afaik we ight be able to use a double,
> I'm not sure if there will be any colisions or not.  Otherwise I suppose we
> could return 2 ints.

MSAA expects for 32bit, when we do this then int works.
(Reporter)

Comment 3

6 years ago
Ok, it's worth to remove this method at all. Internal part use address as ID, MSAA likely will have own implementation. No tests as far as we have. If we need it then it can be added later.
So we want to remove the method right? Good first bug?
Whiteboard: [bk1]
(Reporter)

Comment 5

6 years ago
(In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #4)
> So we want to remove the method right? Good first bug?

yes, if we are agree on comment #3.
(Assignee)

Comment 6

6 years ago
Created attachment 577470 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1
Assignee: nobody → atulagrwl
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Attachment #577470 - Flags: review?(peterv)
(Reporter)

Comment 7

6 years ago
Comment on attachment 577470 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1

Review of attachment 577470 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

you should bump interface uuid, r=me
Attachment #577470 - Flags: review?(peterv) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 8

6 years ago
Created attachment 577888 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.01
Attachment #577470 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Comment 9

6 years ago
Created attachment 577889 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.02
Attachment #577888 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
(Reporter)

Comment 10

6 years ago
Thank you for fixing it.

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/cacd0273ca21
Keywords: checkin-needed
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cacd0273ca21
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla11
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.