Bug 43657 - Fix style violations in Document
Summary: Fix style violations in Document
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New Bugs (show other bugs)
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)
Hardware: Other OS X 10.5
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Tony Gentilcore
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-08-06 17:27 PDT by Tony Gentilcore
Modified: 2010-08-07 09:29 PDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Patch (33.00 KB, patch)
2010-08-06 17:33 PDT, Tony Gentilcore
no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tony Gentilcore 2010-08-06 17:27:43 PDT
Fix style violations in Document
Comment 1 Tony Gentilcore 2010-08-06 17:33:25 PDT
Created attachment 63789 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Adam Barth 2010-08-06 18:02:20 PDT
Comment on attachment 63789 [details]
Patch

Looks great.  Thanks Tony.
Comment 3 Adam Barth 2010-08-06 18:30:26 PDT
Comment on attachment 63789 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 63789

Committed r64889: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/64889>
Comment 4 Adam Barth 2010-08-06 18:30:32 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.
Comment 5 Alexey Proskuryakov 2010-08-06 23:30:03 PDT
             case PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION_NODE:
-                return true;
+                break;

Was this a style violation?
Comment 6 Tony Gentilcore 2010-08-07 09:29:23 PDT
(In reply to comment #5)
>              case PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION_NODE:
> -                return true;
> +                break;
> 
> Was this a style violation?

Sharp eye.

This didn't actually change, the diff is just really misleading.

There are actually two switch statements: the first on line 2591, the second on line 2614. They are identical except for indentation and this one case.

My change only fixed the indentation of both switches. However, rather than making it look like I changed two switch statements, the diff made it look like I deleted the first, changed the second into the first and added a new one.

Anyway, looking at the full file instead of the diff should hopefully clear this up.