Bug 71169 – DOMURL should keep its own state rather than storing it on ScriptExecutionContext

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: FIXED
• Component: New Bugs

[Adam Barth]

DOMURL should keep its own state rather than storing it on ScriptExecutionContext

[Adam Barth]

Created attachment 112961 [details]
Patch

[Eric Seidel (no email)]

Comment on attachment 112961 [details]
Patch

Makes sense to me.

[WebKit Review Bot]

Comment on attachment 112961 [details]
Patch

Rejecting attachment 112961 [details] from commit-queue.

Failed to run "['/mnt/git/webkit-commit-queue/Tools/Scripts/webkit-patch', '--status-host=queues.webkit.org', '-..." exit_code: 2

Last 500 characters of output:
:String&)':
Source/WebCore/html/DOMURL.cpp:120: error: 'isMainThread' was not declared in this scope
make: *** [out/Debug/obj.target/webcore_html/Source/WebCore/html/DOMURL.o] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/build-webkit', '--debug', '--chromium', '--update-chromium']" exit_code: 2
ainThread' was not declared in this scope
make: *** [out/Debug/obj.target/webcore_html/Source/WebCore/html/DOMURL.o] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

Full output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/10242263

[Adam Barth]

Created attachment 112967 [details]
Patch for landing

[WebKit Review Bot]

Comment on attachment 112967 [details]
Patch for landing

Clearing flags on attachment: 112967

Committed r98802: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/98802>

[WebKit Review Bot]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

Comment on attachment 112967 [details]
Patch for landing

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=112967&action=review

> Source/WebCore/html/DOMURL.cpp:66
> +    for (HashSet<String>::iterator iter = m_publicStreamURLs.begin(); iter != publicStreamURLsEnd; ++iter)
> +        MediaStreamRegistry::registry().unregisterMediaStreamURL(KURL(ParsedURLString, *iter));

It's going to ASSERT(isMainThread()). Is DOMURL really main thread only (and why does it have NoStaticTables in IDL in that case)?

[Adam Barth]

This patch doesn't change anything about how this code works.  You probably want to file a new bug and CC the person who added the ASSERT.