Fix for multiple layout tests in accessibility isolated tree mode.
Created attachment 410018 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 410018 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=410018&action=review > Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.cpp:212 > + nodeChange.m_wrapper = axObject.wrapper(); I feel like accessing the internal m_wrapper variable directly is a bit of bad form. can we add a setter method to set this value?
(In reply to chris fleizach from comment #2) > Comment on attachment 410018 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=410018&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.cpp:212 > > + nodeChange.m_wrapper = axObject.wrapper(); > > I feel like accessing the internal m_wrapper variable directly is a bit of > bad form. can we add a setter method to set this value? Actually I was going the opposite direction based on a comment by Darin Adler in another review that we don't use m_ prefix for structure member variables. I don't think it is common either to have setters/getters for structure variables which are public. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think we don't need to make this structure any less transparent, after all it is just an object and its wrapper, it could even be a pair.
Comment on attachment 410018 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=410018&action=review >>> Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.cpp:212 >>> + nodeChange.m_wrapper = axObject.wrapper(); >> >> I feel like accessing the internal m_wrapper variable directly is a bit of bad form. can we add a setter method to set this value? > > Actually I was going the opposite direction based on a comment by Darin Adler in another review that we don't use m_ prefix for structure member variables. I don't think it is common either to have setters/getters for structure variables which are public. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think we don't need to make this structure any less transparent, after all it is just an object and its wrapper, it could even be a pair. ok yea, we should just rename m_wrapper to wrapper
Comment on attachment 410018 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=410018&action=review > Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedObject.cpp:200 > - setProperty(AXPropertyName::ComputedRoleString, object.computedRoleString()); > + setProperty(AXPropertyName::ComputedRoleString, object.computedRoleString().isolatedCopy()); We keep getting this wrong. What can we do to make this easier to get right? >>>> Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.cpp:212 >>>> + nodeChange.m_wrapper = axObject.wrapper(); >>> >>> I feel like accessing the internal m_wrapper variable directly is a bit of bad form. can we add a setter method to set this value? >> >> Actually I was going the opposite direction based on a comment by Darin Adler in another review that we don't use m_ prefix for structure member variables. I don't think it is common either to have setters/getters for structure variables which are public. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think we don't need to make this structure any less transparent, after all it is just an object and its wrapper, it could even be a pair. > > ok yea, we should just rename m_wrapper to wrapper In fact, this brief discussion/misunderstanding demonstrates the value of leaving "m_" out of the names of public data members. > Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.h:345 > + NodeChange(AXIsolatedObject&); > NodeChange(AXIsolatedObject&, AccessibilityObjectWrapper*); > NodeChange(const NodeChange&); Do we really need these? I’d rather we use aggregate style initialization rather than constructors, and let the copy constructor get generated for us (and a move constructor too). We should give that a try.
Created attachment 410074 [details] Patch
(In reply to chris fleizach from comment #4) > Comment on attachment 410018 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=410018&action=review > > >>> Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.cpp:212 > >>> + nodeChange.m_wrapper = axObject.wrapper(); > >> > >> I feel like accessing the internal m_wrapper variable directly is a bit of bad form. can we add a setter method to set this value? > > > > Actually I was going the opposite direction based on a comment by Darin Adler in another review that we don't use m_ prefix for structure member variables. I don't think it is common either to have setters/getters for structure variables which are public. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think we don't need to make this structure any less transparent, after all it is just an object and its wrapper, it could even be a pair. > > ok yea, we should just rename m_wrapper to wrapper Done.
(In reply to Darin Adler from comment #5) > Comment on attachment 410018 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=410018&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedObject.cpp:200 > > - setProperty(AXPropertyName::ComputedRoleString, object.computedRoleString()); > > + setProperty(AXPropertyName::ComputedRoleString, object.computedRoleString().isolatedCopy()); > > We keep getting this wrong. What can we do to make this easier to get right? I will try the suggestion you gave me some time ago about using a template class to do this instead of having to isolatedCopy each individual string. I just put it in the back burner for more pressing issues, but it's time I try that to avoid these errors. > > >>>> Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.cpp:212 > >>>> + nodeChange.m_wrapper = axObject.wrapper(); > >>> > >>> I feel like accessing the internal m_wrapper variable directly is a bit of bad form. can we add a setter method to set this value? > >> > >> Actually I was going the opposite direction based on a comment by Darin Adler in another review that we don't use m_ prefix for structure member variables. I don't think it is common either to have setters/getters for structure variables which are public. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think we don't need to make this structure any less transparent, after all it is just an object and its wrapper, it could even be a pair. > > > > ok yea, we should just rename m_wrapper to wrapper > > In fact, this brief discussion/misunderstanding demonstrates the value of > leaving "m_" out of the names of public data members. Done, removed the m_ prefix. > > > Source/WebCore/accessibility/isolatedtree/AXIsolatedTree.h:345 > > + NodeChange(AXIsolatedObject&); > > NodeChange(AXIsolatedObject&, AccessibilityObjectWrapper*); > > NodeChange(const NodeChange&); > > Do we really need these? I’d rather we use aggregate style initialization > rather than constructors, and let the copy constructor get generated for us > (and a move constructor too). We should give that a try. Done.
Committed r267794: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/267794> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug and clearing flags on attachment 410074 [details].
<rdar://problem/69795437>