Summary: | [Qt] QNetworkReplyHandler refactoring: signal queue | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Luiz Agostini <luiz> | ||||||||
Component: | New Bugs | Assignee: | Luiz Agostini <luiz> | ||||||||
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||||||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | benjamin, cmarcelo, hausmann, jturcotte, kenneth, kling, menard, ossy, webkit.review.bot | ||||||||
Priority: | P3 | Keywords: | Qt | ||||||||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||||
OS: | All | ||||||||||
Bug Depends on: | 57049 | ||||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 57083, 58375 | ||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Luiz Agostini
2011-03-24 19:59:58 PDT
Created attachment 86877 [details] patch I will not set the review flag because this patch depends on the patch in bug 57049 and all bots would be red. But please review it. - Please explain why Lock is needed in QNetworkReplyWrapper::receiveMetaData, in a comment as well would be great. - m_queue->setDeferSignals(m_queue->deferSignals()) could cause surprises if more logic is added to setDeferSignals. Deferring bugs easily slip through tests and some explicit flush() method call would be safer. - Unless I'm missing something, you shouldn't need the inline keyword at the declaration of receiveReadyRead Created attachment 89232 [details]
patch
Attachment 89232 [details] did not pass style-queue:
Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'Source/WebCore/ChangeLog', u'Source/WebCor..." exit_code: 1
Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.h:42: The parameter name "handler" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5]
Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.h:62: The parameter name "queue" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5]
Total errors found: 2 in 3 files
If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment on attachment 89232 [details] patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=89232&action=review > Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.h:77 > + void readyRead(); didReceiveReadyRead()? Created attachment 89234 [details]
patch
style fix
Comment on attachment 89234 [details] patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=89234&action=review r=me. This is a great step towards making this spaghetti understandable without spending 2 hours reading it. :) > Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.h:77 > + void readyRead(); didReceiveReadyRead() or something like that would sound more slot-like. M Source/WebCore/ChangeLog M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.cpp M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.h M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/ResourceHandleQt.cpp Committed r83634 (In reply to comment #8) > M Source/WebCore/ChangeLog > M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.cpp > M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.h > M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/ResourceHandleQt.cpp > Committed r83634 It was rolled out by http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/83673, because it made two layout tests time out: http://build.webkit.org/results/Qt%20Linux%20Release/r83635%20%2831280%29/results.html M Source/WebCore/ChangeLog M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.cpp M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/QNetworkReplyHandler.h M Source/WebCore/platform/network/qt/ResourceHandleQt.cpp Committed r83691 I don't see why It should be part of 2.1.x. It's a huge refactoring with some other patches and has no purpose to be in 2.1.x. |