<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://bugs.webkit.org/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4.1"
          urlbase="https://bugs.webkit.org/"
          
          maintainer="admin@webkit.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>146450</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2015-06-30 02:18:28 -0700</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>[WinCairo] Compile error, WebEditorClient::didApplyStyle() should not have any parameters.</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2015-06-30 10:39:46 -0700</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>WebKit</product>
          <component>WebKit Misc.</component>
          <version>528+ (Nightly build)</version>
          <rep_platform>Unspecified</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Unspecified</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>Normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter>peavo</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Nobody">webkit-unassigned</assigned_to>
          <cc>achristensen</cc>
    
    <cc>bfulgham</cc>
    
    <cc>commit-queue</cc>
    
    <cc>darin</cc>
    
    <cc>ossy</cc>
    
    <cc>rniwa</cc>
          

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105646</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="">peavo</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 02:18:28 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>The abstract method EditClient::didApplyStyle() does not have any parameters, WebEditorClient::didApplyStyle() should have the same signature.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105647</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
      <attachid>255815</attachid>
    <who name="">peavo</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 02:20:58 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Created attachment 255815
Patch</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105656</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
      <attachid>255815</attachid>
    <who name="Csaba Osztrogonác">ossy</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 03:13:12 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Comment on attachment 255815
Patch

LGTM, r=me. Could you add an override keyword before 
landing to avoid possible bugs in the future here?

( Just note: This code was introduced in bug146379 - https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/186086 )</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105657</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
    <who name="">peavo</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 03:28:04 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #2)
&gt; Comment on attachment 255815 [details]
&gt; Patch
&gt; 
&gt; LGTM, r=me. Could you add an override keyword before 
&gt; landing to avoid possible bugs in the future here?
&gt; 
&gt; ( Just note: This code was introduced in bug146379 -
&gt; https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/186086 )

Thanks for reviewing :)

Yes, I can add the override keyword, but I seem to remember there was an agreement not to add the override keyword when overriding pure virtual methods?</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105658</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
      <attachid>255815</attachid>
    <who name="Csaba Osztrogonác">ossy</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 03:38:18 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Comment on attachment 255815
Patch

I missed this agreement. But I agree, adding override keyword for 
overriding pure virtual function isn&apos;t necessary. Let&apos;s land it as is.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105665</commentid>
    <comment_count>5</comment_count>
    <who name="">peavo</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 03:47:00 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #4)
&gt; Comment on attachment 255815 [details]
&gt; Patch
&gt; 
&gt; I missed this agreement. But I agree, adding override keyword for 
&gt; overriding pure virtual function isn&apos;t necessary. Let&apos;s land it as is.

Ok, thanks!</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105668</commentid>
    <comment_count>6</comment_count>
      <attachid>255815</attachid>
    <who name="WebKit Commit Bot">commit-queue</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 04:26:59 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Comment on attachment 255815
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 255815

Committed r186114: &lt;http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/186114&gt;</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105669</commentid>
    <comment_count>7</comment_count>
    <who name="WebKit Commit Bot">commit-queue</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 04:27:05 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105705</commentid>
    <comment_count>8</comment_count>
    <who name="Darin Adler">darin</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 10:13:22 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #3)
&gt; I seem to remember there was an
&gt; agreement not to add the override keyword when overriding pure virtual
&gt; methods?

This is the first I have heard of this. I think we should definitely use override in cases like that and I’d like to know more about why we wouldn’t.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1105719</commentid>
    <comment_count>9</comment_count>
    <who name="">peavo</who>
    <bug_when>2015-06-30 10:39:46 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #8)
&gt; (In reply to comment #3)
&gt; &gt; I seem to remember there was an
&gt; &gt; agreement not to add the override keyword when overriding pure virtual
&gt; &gt; methods?
&gt; 
&gt; This is the first I have heard of this. I think we should definitely use
&gt; override in cases like that and I’d like to know more about why we wouldn’t.

Ok, sorry for spreading false rumours. I thought I picked this up somewhere, but I am probably wrong.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
          <attachment
              isobsolete="0"
              ispatch="1"
              isprivate="0"
          >
            <attachid>255815</attachid>
            <date>2015-06-30 02:20:58 -0700</date>
            <delta_ts>2015-06-30 04:26:59 -0700</delta_ts>
            <desc>Patch</desc>
            <filename>bug-146450-20150630111942.patch</filename>
            <type>text/plain</type>
            <size>2033</size>
            <attacher>peavo</attacher>
            
              <data encoding="base64">SW5kZXg6IFNvdXJjZS9XZWJLaXQvd2luL0NoYW5nZUxvZwo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09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</data>

          </attachment>
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>