Add an SPI policy action to allow clients to explicitly ask for a new process on a navigation
Created attachment 345298 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 345298 [details] Patch Attachment 345298 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): Output: https://webkit-queues.webkit.org/results/8584247 New failing tests: http/tests/security/canvas-remote-read-remote-video-localhost.html
Created attachment 345337 [details] Archive of layout-test-results from ews205 for win-future The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the win-ews. Bot: ews205 Port: win-future Platform: CYGWIN_NT-6.1-2.9.0-0.318-5-3-x86_64-64bit
(In reply to Build Bot from comment #2) > Comment on attachment 345298 [details] > Patch > > Attachment 345298 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): > Output: https://webkit-queues.webkit.org/results/8584247 > > New failing tests: > http/tests/security/canvas-remote-read-remote-video-localhost.html This failure is not due to this change.
Comment on attachment 345298 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=345298&action=review > Source/WebKit/UIProcess/API/Cocoa/WKNavigationDelegatePrivate.h:60 > +static const WKNavigationActionPolicy WK_API_AVAILABLE(macosx(WK_MAC_TBA), ios(WK_IOS_TBA))_WKNavigationActionPolicyAllowInNewProcess = (WKNavigationActionPolicy)(_WKNavigationActionPolicyAllowWithoutTryingAppLink + 1); Missing a space between the availability macro and the name.
Created attachment 345349 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 345349 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 345349 Committed r233986: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/233986>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
<rdar://problem/42387710>
Comment on attachment 345349 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=345349&action=review > Source/WebKit/UIProcess/API/C/WKFramePolicyListener.cpp:51 > + toImpl(policyListenerRef)->setApplyPolicyInNewProcessIfPossible(true); > + toImpl(policyListenerRef)->use(std::nullopt); I think this should've been another parameter rather than setting a bool on the listener. Don't worry, I'll make it more elegant later.