Bug 88056

Summary: [Refactoring] Frame::willDetachPage() shouldn't be called more than once.
Product: WebKit Reporter: Hajime Morrita <morrita>
Component: FramesAssignee: Hajime Morrita <morrita>
Status: REOPENED ---    
Severity: Normal CC: abarth, darin, japhet, rniwa, webkit.review.bot
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Bug Depends on: 88088    
Bug Blocks:    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch none

Description Hajime Morrita 2012-06-01 00:39:58 PDT
This is just a cleanup.
Comment 1 Hajime Morrita 2012-06-01 01:22:39 PDT
Created attachment 145237 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Hajime Morrita 2012-06-01 01:24:03 PDT
Darin, Ryosuke, could you take a look? This is just a small cleanup.
Comment 3 Ryosuke Niwa 2012-06-01 01:44:33 PDT
Comment on attachment 145237 [details]
Patch

This is a scary change but looks reasonable. Hopefully it won't cause any regressions.
Comment 4 Ryosuke Niwa 2012-06-01 01:46:38 PDT
Comment on attachment 145237 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=145237&action=review

> Source/WebCore/page/Frame.cpp:695
>      if (Frame* parent = tree()->parent())
>          parent->loader()->checkLoadComplete();

Actually, it's not entirely clear to me why we'd have to call checkLoadComplete more than once :\
Comment 5 WebKit Review Bot 2012-06-01 05:30:25 PDT
Comment on attachment 145237 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 145237

Committed r119219: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/119219>
Comment 6 WebKit Review Bot 2012-06-01 05:30:31 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.
Comment 7 WebKit Review Bot 2012-06-01 06:47:56 PDT
Re-opened since this is blocked by 88088
Comment 8 Adam Barth 2012-06-01 08:54:14 PDT
Comment on attachment 145237 [details]
Patch

I seem to remember trying to do this originally, but there was something I found in studying the code that didn't work properly this way...
Comment 9 Hajime Morrita 2012-06-03 17:26:46 PDT
(In reply to comment #8)
> (From update of attachment 145237 [details])
> I seem to remember trying to do this originally, but there was something I found in studying the code that didn't work properly this way...
Hmm, interesting...
I'd have liked to see the failed test.
But this looks something which should keep untouched...