Closed Bug 878442 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

Add tree change mutations to the inspector actor

Categories

(DevTools :: Inspector, defect)

x86
macOS
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
Firefox 24

People

(Reporter: dcamp, Assigned: dcamp)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 3 obsolete files)

No description provided.
Blocks: 878443
Attached patch WIP 1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
This is untested, but I think it should work. Doesn't yet fake child list mutations for iframe loads, I'll probably save that for a followup.
Attached patch v1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
With tests and the fixes needed to make those tests work.
Attachment #757037 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #757147 - Flags: review?(jwalker)
(oops, the child list changes will need to include numChildren updates for the nodes...)
Blocks: 878614
Attached patch v2 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
This version updates numChildren
Attachment #757147 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #757147 - Flags: review?(jwalker)
Attachment #757175 - Flags: review?(jwalker)
Attached patch v3Splinter Review
Improved documentation.
Attachment #757175 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #757175 - Flags: review?(jwalker)
Attachment #759495 - Flags: review?(jwalker)
Comment on attachment 759495 [details] [diff] [review] v3 Review of attachment 759495 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: toolkit/devtools/server/actors/inspector.js @@ +1051,5 @@ > + * removed: array of <domnode actor ID> The list of actors *previously > + * seen by the client* that were removed from the target node. > + * > + * Actors that are included in a MutationRecord's `removed` but > + * not in an `added` has been removed from the client's ownership s/has been removed/have been removed/ @@ +1105,5 @@ > mutation.incompleteValue = true; > } else { > mutation.newValue = targetNode.nodeValue; > } > + } else if (mutation.type === "childList") { This is kind of a prove-i've-been-here comment. Wouldn't 'mutation' be a better name: for (let mutation of mutations) .... Ignore at will.
Attachment #759495 - Flags: review?(jwalker) → review+
I used 'change' instead of 'mutation' because it seemed to small a change from 'mutations' by total percentage of characters. But I kinda regret that now. Enough patches would bitrot if I changed that now that I'd prefer a followup if we care enough.
(In reply to Dave Camp (:dcamp) from comment #7) > I used 'change' instead of 'mutation' because it seemed to small a change > from 'mutations' by total percentage of characters. Boy did I mess that sentence up. "mutation" vs "mutations" seemed harder to see the difference between than "change" vs. "mutations". But I regret that, I think.
Assignee: nobody → dcamp
Whiteboard: [fixed-in-fx-team]
No longer blocks: remote-inspector, 878443
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [fixed-in-fx-team]
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 24
Product: Firefox → DevTools
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: