Bug 73311 – Web Inspector: introduce generic capabilities concept, migrate debugger domain to generic capabilities.

• Component: Web Inspector (Deprecated)
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Pavel Feldman]

This is necessary for getting rid of the "capability" part of the Preferences object.

[Pavel Feldman]

Created attachment 116950 [details]
Patch

[WebKit Review Bot]

Attachment 116950 [details] did not pass style-queue:

Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'Source/WebCore/CMakeLists.txt', u'Source/W..." exit_code: 1

Source/WebCore/inspector/InspectorMetaAgent.cpp:47:  The parameter type should use PassRefPtr instead of RefPtr.  [readability/pass_ptr] [5]
Source/WebCore/inspector/InspectorMetaAgent.h:58:  The parameter type should use PassRefPtr instead of RefPtr.  [readability/pass_ptr] [5]
Total errors found: 2 in 33 files


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

[Pavel Feldman]

Created attachment 116955 [details]
[Patch] for bots

[WebKit Review Bot]

Attachment 116955 [details] did not pass style-queue:

Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'Source/WebCore/CMakeLists.txt', u'Source/W..." exit_code: 1

Source/WebCore/inspector/InspectorMetaAgent.cpp:47:  The parameter type should use PassRefPtr instead of RefPtr.  [readability/pass_ptr] [5]
Source/WebCore/inspector/InspectorMetaAgent.h:58:  The parameter type should use PassRefPtr instead of RefPtr.  [readability/pass_ptr] [5]
Total errors found: 2 in 33 files


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

[Pavel Feldman]

Committed r101367: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/101367>

[Timothy Hatcher]

Comment on attachment 116950 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=116950&action=review

> Source/WebCore/inspector/Inspector.json:44
> +        "domain": "Meta",

This is not a great name. Why can't these just be added to the Inspector domain? They fit there IMHO.

[Pavel Feldman]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (From update of attachment 116950 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=116950&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebCore/inspector/Inspector.json:44
> > +        "domain": "Meta",
> 
> This is not a great name. Why can't these just be added to the Inspector domain? They fit there IMHO.

It was my plan and I was cleaning up Inspector domain for that very reason. But there is a couple of methods that are still there, so I ended up creating a brand new agent. The idea is that this agent provides Metainformation on the agents, hence the name.

Btw, getting the https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72506 reviewed for WebKit2 will make the legacy workers debugging support vanish and hence InspectorAgent clean.

[Timothy Hatcher]

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (From update of attachment 116950 [details] [details])
> > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=116950&action=review
> > 
> > > Source/WebCore/inspector/Inspector.json:44
> > > +        "domain": "Meta",
> > 
> > This is not a great name. Why can't these just be added to the Inspector domain? They fit there IMHO.
> 
> It was my plan and I was cleaning up Inspector domain for that very reason. But there is a couple of methods that are still there, so I ended up creating a brand new agent. The idea is that this agent provides Metainformation on the agents, hence the name.
> 
> Btw, getting the https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72506 reviewed for WebKit2 will make the legacy workers debugging support vanish and hence InspectorAgent clean.

I see. The fact that the Inspector domain isn't empty shouldn't prevent adding these and removing the other methods from the Inspector domain once they can be removed. So I don't buy the argument that Meta needs to exists for that reason.