.
<rdar://problem/74678778>
Created attachment 421384 [details] Patch v1.0
Comment on attachment 421384 [details] Patch v1.0 Going a different route.
Created attachment 421482 [details] Patch v2.0
Created attachment 421483 [details] Patch v2.1
Comment on attachment 421483 [details] Patch v2.1 View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=421483&action=review r=me > Source/WebKit/UIProcess/API/Cocoa/_WKInspectorExtensionHost.h:66 > +@property (nonatomic, readonly) WKWebView *extensionHostWebView; NIT: It seems a bit redundant to have `extensionHost` in the name given that this protocol already has that in the name. If this is ObjC convention tho feel free to ignore :) Also, seeing as how this is the Web Inspector `WKWebView`, should we maybe just call it as such (e.g. `inspectorWebView`) rather than that being somewhat implicit or explained in the discussion?
(In reply to Devin Rousso from comment #6) > Comment on attachment 421483 [details] > Patch v2.1 > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=421483&action=review > > r=me > > > Source/WebKit/UIProcess/API/Cocoa/_WKInspectorExtensionHost.h:66 > > +@property (nonatomic, readonly) WKWebView *extensionHostWebView; > > NIT: It seems a bit redundant to have `extensionHost` in the name given that > this protocol already has that in the name. If this is ObjC convention tho > feel free to ignore :) > > Also, seeing as how this is the Web Inspector `WKWebView`, should we maybe > just call it as such (e.g. `inspectorWebView`) rather than that being > somewhat implicit or explained in the discussion? Yes, it's redundant. This is on purpose, to deter folks from doing all kinds of bad things to Inspector's WKWebView subclass because it's easier than adding proper _WKInspectorConfiguartion options or other SPI.
Committed r273471: <https://commits.webkit.org/r273471> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug and clearing flags on attachment 421483 [details].