Bug 87092

Summary:

[EFL] webintents/web-intents-delivery-reuse.html is failing on EFL port

Product:

WebKit

Reporter:

Chris Dumez <cdumez>

Component:

WebKit EFL

Assignee:

Chris Dumez <cdumez>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

Severity:

Normal

CC:

abarth, gbillock, gyuyoung.kim, lucas.de.marchi, ojan, rakuco, webkit.review.bot

Priority:

Version:

528+ (Nightly build)

Hardware:

Unspecified

OS:

Unspecified

Bug Depends on:

Bug Blocks:

86868

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Patch	none

Description Chris Dumez 2012-05-22 00:34:55 PDT

webkitIntent cannot be assigned for some reason and is always null after assignment.

Comment 1 Chris Dumez 2012-05-23 05:47:41 PDT

gbillock: In DOMWindowIntents.idl, should the webkitIntent attribute be really marked as readonly? Because of this, the JSC bindings generator does not generate a setter and does not do any shadowing.

As a consequence, the webintents/web-intents-delivery-reuse.html test is failing for us. If I remove the "readonly" for the attribute, then the test is passing just fine. Is it really something that should be fixed in the JSC bindings generator?

Comment 2 Chris Dumez 2012-05-23 06:05:03 PDT

Created attachment 143551 [details]
Patch

Here is a patch which removes the "readonly" keyword from the webkitIntent attribute so that it becomes truly replaceable with JSC.
The patch also unskips the corresponding test case for EFL port.

Note that in the whole source tree, there is no other IDL attribute which is both readonly and [Replaceable].

Comment 3 Greg Billock 2012-05-23 08:06:01 PDT

(In reply to comment #1)
> gbillock: In DOMWindowIntents.idl, should the webkitIntent attribute be really marked as readonly? Because of this, the JSC bindings generator does not generate a setter and does not do any shadowing.
> 
> As a consequence, the webintents/web-intents-delivery-reuse.html test is failing for us. If I remove the "readonly" for the attribute, then the test is passing just fine. Is it really something that should be fixed in the JSC bindings generator?

Seems fine to me, but Adam is a better person to ask. I put readonly because when the internal object is returned, JS shouldn't be altering it -- since it is replaceable, they can just write their own. It sounds like JSC uses another mechanism to accomplish that, though.

Comment 4 Adam Barth 2012-05-23 13:20:35 PDT

Comment on attachment 143551 [details]
Patch

Ok.

Comment 5 WebKit Review Bot 2012-05-23 13:58:04 PDT

Comment on attachment 143551 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 143551

Committed r118241: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/118241>

Comment 6 WebKit Review Bot 2012-05-23 13:58:09 PDT

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.