RESOLVED FIXED 25342
Pass MessageLevel and MessageSource into the ChromeClient::addMessageToConsole 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25342
Summary Pass MessageLevel and MessageSource into the ChromeClient::addMessageToConsole
Pavel Feldman
Reported 2009-04-23 07:41:02 PDT
Pass MessageLevel and MessageSource into the ChromeClient::addMessageToConsole
Attachments
patch (12.35 KB, patch)
2009-04-23 07:41 PDT, Pavel Feldman 		eric: review-
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
patch (12.93 KB, patch)
2009-04-30 09:03 PDT, Pavel Feldman 		dglazkov: review+
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Show Obsolete (1) View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Pavel Feldman
Comment 1 2009-04-23 07:41:46 PDT
Created attachment 29710 [details] patch
Dimitri Glazkov (Google)
Comment 2 2009-04-23 08:27:13 PDT
Adding Timothy to CC. BTW, you don't need to remove "Reviewed by NOBODY (OOPS!)" from the ChangeLog.
Timothy Hatcher
Comment 3 2009-04-23 09:16:38 PDT
Comment on attachment 29710 [details] patch Patch looks fine. But why is this needed?
Pavel Feldman
Comment 4 2009-04-23 12:18:07 PDT
(In reply to comment #3) > (From update of attachment 29710 [details] [review]) > Patch looks fine. But why is this needed? > Hm.. I thought I replied to this one. Anyway, posting again. Our async/out-of-process version of WebInspector is currently not based on InspectorController. The reason was that we did not want to interfere with Dmitry's unforking effort, yet wanted to experiment. So we came up with these agents concept that basically mimic InspectorController, but separating 'agent' nature from the 'transport'. Now that InspectorController is unforked, I am planning to bring these concepts into the WebKit land and use what we have in Chromium as a proof of concept / experimental playground. It will take me some time to split InspectorController and I don't want Chromium guys to be blocked by that. Hence I want to expose events that are missing in clients, namely: console severity and xmlhttprequest data. I realize that this is somewhat a temporary measure, but I think it will serve us all well. Does it make sence?
Timothy Hatcher
Comment 5 2009-04-23 12:29:39 PDT
Yes, makes sense. It would be good to give a brief reason when posting patches so we don't have to ask/wonder. Thanks for explaining!
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 6 2009-04-29 13:17:41 PDT
Comment on attachment 29710 [details] patch Please update the patch to include the nice comments you discussed with Timonthy. That way someone else can land it w/o thinking about it.
Pavel Feldman
Comment 7 2009-04-30 09:03:54 PDT
Created attachment 29913 [details] patch
Pavel Feldman
Comment 8 2009-04-30 09:04:11 PDT
(In reply to comment #6) > (From update of attachment 29710 [details] [review]) > Please update the patch to include the nice comments you discussed with > Timonthy. That way someone else can land it w/o thinking about it. > Done
Dimitri Glazkov (Google)
Comment 9 2009-04-30 09:24:40 PDT
Comment on attachment 29913 [details] patch Don't forget a URL in the ChangeLog. But I'll fix up and land shortly.
Dimitri Glazkov (Google)
Comment 10 2009-04-30 09:41:46 PDT
Landed as http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/43063.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.