910155 - Rule view does not keep changed rules marked after inspecting other nodes

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(DevTools :: Inspector, defect)

Comment 1

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

I originally implemented this in bug 733747. We removed it because we had multiple toolboxes but it should be simple to resurrect.

Comment 2

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

Attachment: reintroduce-rule-view-store-910155.patch

Comment 3

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

I also tidied a little.

Comment 4

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

Comment on attachment 797277 [details] [diff] [review]
reintroduce-rule-view-store-910155.patch

Needs test

Comment 5

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

Attachment: patch v2

So, I have tidied other stuff a little 'cos... well, just 'cos.

This is way simpler now and it actually works, which is an added bonus.

Comment 6

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

Attachment: Patch v3

Comment 7

[Dave Camp (:dcamp)]

Comment on attachment 797735 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v3

Review of attachment 797735 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The mixed in whitespace/formatting changes made this tougher to review, but I'm happy they're done.

Comment 8

[Paul Rouget [:paul]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/fx-team/rev/52d436a29df0

Comment 9

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/52d436a29df0

Comment 10

[Paul Rouget [:paul]]

Comment on attachment 797735 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v3

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 
User impact if declined: Any change in the rule view is lost
Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): since fx26
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low
String or IDL/UUID changes made by this patch: none

Comment 11

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

Doesn't apply to beta at all. Please post a branch-specific patch for uplift.

Comment 12

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

Landing this in 25 would be too high cost for only a little gain and could result in new bugs as it would require remoting part of the inspector.

Comment 13

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

Why was approval requested in comment 10 then?

Comment 14

[Mike Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] [:mikeratcliffe]]

(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #13)
> Why was approval requested in comment 10 then?

Paul probably didn't realize that this was fixed after the rule view was remoted.