Bug 193943 - Rename ChildProcess to AuxiliaryProcess
Summary: Rename ChildProcess to AuxiliaryProcess
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: Alex Christensen
URL:
Keywords: InRadar
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2019-01-28 17:34 PST by Alex Christensen
Modified: 2019-01-29 15:14 PST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Patch (308.64 KB, patch)
2019-01-28 17:36 PST, Alex Christensen
aestes: review+
Details | Formatted Diff | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Alex Christensen 2019-01-28 17:34:32 PST
Rename ChildProcess to AuxiliaryProcess
Comment 1 Alex Christensen 2019-01-28 17:36:32 PST
Created attachment 360408 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 EWS Watchlist 2019-01-28 17:39:55 PST
Attachment 360408 [details] did not pass style-queue:


ERROR: Source/WebKit/Shared/mac/AuxiliaryProcessMac.mm:63:  Misplaced OS version check. Please use a named macro in wtf/Platform.h, wtf/FeatureDefines.h, or an appropriate internal file.  [build/version_check] [5]
ERROR: Source/WebKit/Shared/mac/AuxiliaryProcessMac.mm:75:  Extra space after (  [whitespace/parens] [2]
ERROR: Source/WebKit/Shared/mac/AuxiliaryProcessMac.mm:75:  Extra space before )  [whitespace/parens] [2]
ERROR: Source/WebKit/WebProcess/wpe/WebProcessMainWPE.cpp:30:  Alphabetical sorting problem.  [build/include_order] [4]
ERROR: Source/WebKit/WebProcess/gtk/WebProcessMainGtk.cpp:30:  Alphabetical sorting problem.  [build/include_order] [4]
Total errors found: 5 in 68 files


If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment 3 Andy Estes 2019-01-29 12:52:43 PST
Comment on attachment 360408 [details]
Patch

rs=me
Comment 4 Alex Christensen 2019-01-29 14:13:06 PST
https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/240683/webkit
Comment 5 Radar WebKit Bug Importer 2019-01-29 14:14:28 PST
<rdar://problem/47645448>
Comment 6 Geoffrey Garen 2019-01-29 15:10:23 PST
LOL, did you remove all use of ChildProcess? I thought only NetworkProcess wanted this distinction?
Comment 7 Chris Dumez 2019-01-29 15:14:31 PST
(In reply to Geoffrey Garen from comment #6)
> LOL, did you remove all use of ChildProcess? I thought only NetworkProcess
> wanted this distinction?

This was my understanding as well. This is a lot of code churn just for one of the child processes.