915629 - Chrome doesn't need to check the indexedDB permission

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Storage: IndexedDB, defect)

Description

[Jan Varga [:janv]]

Attachment: patch

Chrome (JSMs and components) and chrome windows doesn't need to check the indexedDB permission.

Attaching a patch that should also fix the "Chrome windows shouldn't track quota!" assertion which appeared after temp storage landing.

Comment 1

[Jan Varga [:janv]]

https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=ce588e09b29f

Comment 2

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

Comment on attachment 803637 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Review of attachment 803637 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Looks great!

Comment 3

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3c809ee6b5af

Comment 4

[Mounir Lamouri (:mounir)]

Jan, are you aware that the Permission Manager will always grant permission if the principal has chrome privileges? (Just to let you know in case of that might make that code simpler, because that means that in a basic setup, there is no chrome-specific code to write, it should just work.)

Comment 5

[Jan Varga [:janv]]

(In reply to Mounir Lamouri (:mounir) from comment #4)
> Jan, are you aware that the Permission Manager will always grant permission
> if the principal has chrome privileges? (Just to let you know in case of
> that might make that code simpler, because that means that in a basic setup,
> there is no chrome-specific code to write, it should just work.)

Yeah, but in this case we want to avoid the permission check for temporary storage in content windows too, that is, the code has to be there anyway, so why don't use it for chrome too ?

Comment 6

[Mounir Lamouri (:mounir)]

(In reply to Jan Varga [:janv] from comment #5)
> Yeah, but in this case we want to avoid the permission check for temporary
> storage in content windows too, that is, the code has to be there anyway, so
> why don't use it for chrome too ?

As said, it was only "for information". I have not checked the code so if you have good reasons to do those early checks, that's great ;)