Bug 31393 - externalRepresentation should take Frame as the argument
: externalRepresentation should take Frame as the argument
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
: WebKit
WebCore Misc.
: 528+ (Nightly build)
: PC Mac OS X 10.5
: P2 Normal
Assigned To:
:
:
:
:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-11-11 23:57 PST by
Modified: 2009-11-12 18:49 PST (History)


Attachments
Patch v1 (6.81 KB, patch)
2009-11-12 00:00 PST, Shinichiro Hamaji
no flags Review Patch | Details | Formatted Diff | Diff


Note

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Description From 2009-11-11 23:57:15 PST
As suggested in Bug 30555, WebCore::externalRepresentation should take Frame* instead of RenderObject*.
------- Comment #1 From 2009-11-12 00:00:41 PST -------
Created an attachment (id=43036) [details]
Patch v1
------- Comment #2 From 2009-11-12 09:22:44 PST -------
(From update of attachment 43036 [details])
This is a good change. But you're missing an opportunity to fix a major bug in externalRepresentation.

The layout needs to be moved to the top of the function, before the SVG call to writeRenderResources.

And the RenderObject should be fetched only after the call to layout.

I'll say r=me assuming that you'll do those fixes in a subsequent patch, because those are really the motivation for making this change.
------- Comment #3 From 2009-11-12 18:37:27 PST -------
(From update of attachment 43036 [details])
Clearing flags on attachment: 43036

Committed r50923: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/50923>
------- Comment #4 From 2009-11-12 18:37:36 PST -------
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.
------- Comment #5 From 2009-11-12 18:49:22 PST -------
Yeah, I'll fix it, but I wanted to avoid changing both WebCore interface and WebCore implementation in one patch. An interface change requires change of multiple platform code, which has the risk of build breakage. So, I want to keep the risk as possible. I'll post another patch after I confirm this change doesn't break anything in build bots. I think I should have described this plan, sorry.

Thanks for the review.