Bug 173986 – Web Inspector: Remove unnecessary hasChildren from TreeOutline

• Component: Web Inspector
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Devin Rousso]

.

[Devin Rousso]

Created attachment 314170 [details]
Patch

[Build Bot]

Attachment 314170 [details] did not pass style-queue:


ERROR: Source/WebInspectorUI/ChangeLog:3:  ChangeLog entry has no bug number  [changelog/bugnumber] [5]
Total errors found: 1 in 2 files


If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

[Devin Rousso]

Created attachment 314172 [details]
Patch

Oops.  Forgot bug :P

[Devin Rousso]

Created attachment 314173 [details]
Patch

Oops.  Forgot bug :P

[Devin Rousso]

Created attachment 314180 [details]
Patch

[Joseph Pecoraro]

Comment on attachment 314180 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=314180&action=review

> Source/WebInspectorUI/ChangeLog:24
> [phone]  Devin Rousso  <[e-mail]>
> +
> +        Web Inspector: TreeOutlines should mark hasChildren as false when calling removeChildren
> +        https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173986

Double changelog.

Seems fine. r=me

[Devin Rousso]

Created attachment 314205 [details]
Patch

[WebKit Commit Bot]

Comment on attachment 314205 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 314205

Committed r218983: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/218983>

[WebKit Commit Bot]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.

[WebKit Commit Bot]

Re-opened since this is blocked by bug 174042

[Joseph Pecoraro]

This transitively affected TreeElement, because some TreeElement operations were TreeOutline operations:

    appendChild() { return WebInspector.TreeOutline.prototype.appendChild.apply(this, arguments); }
    insertChild() { return WebInspector.TreeOutline.prototype.insertChild.apply(this, arguments); }
    removeChild() { return WebInspector.TreeOutline.prototype.removeChild.apply(this, arguments); }
    removeChildAtIndex() { return WebInspector.TreeOutline.prototype.removeChildAtIndex.apply(this, arguments); }
    removeChildren() { return WebInspector.TreeOutline.prototype.removeChildren.apply(this, arguments); }
    removeChildrenRecursive() { return WebInspector.TreeOutline.prototype.removeChildrenRecursive.apply(this, arguments); }
    selfOrDescendant() { return WebInspector.TreeOutline.prototype.selfOrDescendant.apply(this, arguments); }

So this was not the right change. It is being rolled out.

Ultimately the underlying issue "TreeOutline's hasChildren doesn't match children.length" still exists. The "hasChildren" property is misleading. It may mean "Doesn't have children yet but needs to populate and will have children", so it is unclear. Lets leave this the way it is and correct any individual issues as needed.

[Geoffrey Garen]

Seems like a good idea to add a test case for the backtraces we temporarily broke. That's a pretty significant regression not to catch by automated testing.