Bug 163611 - [WebIDL] Allow sequences of dictionaries as members of other dictionaries and as parameters
Summary: [WebIDL] Allow sequences of dictionaries as members of other dictionaries and...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New Bugs (show other bugs)
Version: WebKit Nightly Build
Hardware: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Zan Dobersek
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 163624
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2016-10-18 12:32 PDT by Zan Dobersek
Modified: 2016-10-18 23:20 PDT (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Patch (9.43 KB, patch)
2016-10-18 12:44 PDT, Zan Dobersek 		no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Zan Dobersek 2016-10-18 12:32:46 PDT 
[WebIDL] Allow sequences of dictionaries as members of other dictionaries and as parameters
Comment 1 Zan Dobersek 2016-10-18 12:44:53 PDT 
Created attachment 291970 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Sam Weinig 2016-10-18 12:48:43 PDT 
This makes me think that Converter<IDLDictionary<T>>::convert() should maybe return a T not Optional<T>.  I need to think through what the consequences of this would be.
Comment 3 Chris Dumez 2016-10-18 12:56:17 PDT 
(In reply to comment #2)
> This makes me think that Converter<IDLDictionary<T>>::convert() should maybe
> return a T not Optional<T>.  I need to think through what the consequences
> of this would be.

I think I made the switch to returning Optional a while back so we could return Nullopt in error cases. However, since then, we updated our dictionary code so that all our native dictionary structs must have a default constructor. Therefore, I think it is no longer necessary to return an Optional<>, we can just return { } instead.

So I agree with Sam.
Comment 4 Chris Dumez 2016-10-18 12:57:00 PDT 
@Zan: I am happy to make the code change if you want. Just let me know.
Comment 5 Zan Dobersek 2016-10-18 23:19:37 PDT 
(In reply to comment #4)
> @Zan: I am happy to make the code change if you want. Just let me know.

Saw it in bug #163624. Thanks!

With that this patch isn't needed anymore.