Bug 92340

Summary: Add a ChromeClient method to send message traces from WebCore to the client.
Product: WebKit Reporter: Jer Noble <jer.noble>
Component: New BugsAssignee: Jer Noble <jer.noble>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: gns, philn, xan.lopez
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Bug Depends on: 92337    
Bug Blocks: 92341    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch
none
Patch
none
Patch andersca: review+, gyuyoung.kim: commit-queue-

Description Jer Noble 2012-07-25 23:37:21 PDT
Add a ChromeClient method to send message traces from WebCore to the client.
Comment 1 Jer Noble 2012-07-26 00:01:30 PDT
Created attachment 154556 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Jer Noble 2012-07-26 00:08:45 PDT
Created attachment 154558 [details]
Patch
Comment 3 Gyuyoung Kim 2012-07-26 00:30:39 PDT
Comment on attachment 154558 [details]
Patch

Attachment 154558 [details] did not pass efl-ews (efl):
Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/13339596
Comment 4 Early Warning System Bot 2012-07-26 00:42:23 PDT
Comment on attachment 154558 [details]
Patch

Attachment 154558 [details] did not pass qt-wk2-ews (qt):
Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/13340602
Comment 5 Mark Rowe (bdash) 2012-07-26 01:03:16 PDT
Comment on attachment 154558 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=154558&action=review

> Source/WebKit2/WebProcess/WebCoreSupport/WebChromeClient.cpp:779
> +    if (!m_page->corePage()->settings()->messageTracingEnabled())
> +        return;

In your related patch you're always checking this condition before calling the function. Is it really necessary to perform the check again?
Comment 6 Jer Noble 2012-07-26 07:48:07 PDT
(In reply to comment #5)
> (From update of attachment 154558 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=154558&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/WebProcess/WebCoreSupport/WebChromeClient.cpp:779
> > +    if (!m_page->corePage()->settings()->messageTracingEnabled())
> > +        return;
> 
> In your related patch you're always checking this condition before calling the function. Is it really necessary to perform the check again?

I considered that, but wanted to protect against bad future selves who ignore the setting before calling traceMessage().  I'm open to pulling it out, or replacing it with an assert.
Comment 7 Jer Noble 2012-07-26 10:19:08 PDT
Created attachment 154681 [details]
Patch

Renamed things to refer to "diagnostic logging".
Comment 8 Gyuyoung Kim 2012-07-26 10:26:09 PDT
Comment on attachment 154681 [details]
Patch

Attachment 154681 [details] did not pass efl-ews (efl):
Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/13340848
Comment 9 Early Warning System Bot 2012-07-26 10:29:03 PDT
Comment on attachment 154681 [details]
Patch

Attachment 154681 [details] did not pass qt-wk2-ews (qt):
Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/13353827
Comment 10 Jer Noble 2012-07-26 11:46:10 PDT
Committed r123778: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/123778>