WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED FIXED
77926
[Blackberry] Clean up Networkjob and Networkmanger: remove unused variables in release build and change some public functions into be private ones
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77926
Summary
[Blackberry] Clean up Networkjob and Networkmanger: remove unused variables i...
Chris.Guan
Reported
2012-02-06 19:22:12 PST
1. remove unused functions and member variable. 2. move some public functions to private.
Attachments
Patch
(4.40 KB, patch)
2012-02-06 20:32 PST
,
Chris.Guan
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Patch
(4.36 KB, patch)
2012-02-06 21:35 PST
,
Chris.Guan
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Patch
(6.35 KB, patch)
2012-02-07 00:17 PST
,
Chris.Guan
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Show Obsolete
(2)
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Leo Yang
Comment 1
2012-02-06 20:00:03 PST
Fixing up the title.
Chris.Guan
Comment 2
2012-02-06 20:32:55 PST
Created
attachment 125759
[details]
Patch
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 3
2012-02-06 20:35:18 PST
Attachment 125759
[details]
did not pass style-queue: Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'Source/WebCore/ChangeLog', u'Source/WebCor..." exit_code: 1 Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:4: Line contains tab character. [whitespace/tab] [5] Total errors found: 1 in 2 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Chris.Guan
Comment 4
2012-02-06 21:35:21 PST
Created
attachment 125762
[details]
Patch
Antonio Gomes
Comment 5
2012-02-06 21:37:50 PST
Comment on
attachment 125762
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=125762&action=review
please, lets find a better name than clientIsOk, since we are around :)
> Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:9 > + 2. Remove an ASSERT in NetworkManger, becuase never hit it.
because* it is never hit
Leo Yang
Comment 6
2012-02-06 21:38:37 PST
Why remove m_isRunning and the ASSERT? What about guard it with #ifndef NDEBUG macro so that m_isRunning and NetworkJob::isRunning() are there only for Debug mode.
Chris.Guan
Comment 7
2012-02-06 21:55:00 PST
(In reply to
comment #6
)
> Why remove m_isRunning and the ASSERT? What about guard it with #ifndef NDEBUG macro so that m_isRunning and NetworkJob::isRunning() are there only for Debug mode.
No, it dose not make any help, because the code log makes sure this assert is never hit, because the delete timer is firing after handleNotifyClose() in which definitely m_isRunning was set to false. I added this comments in my change log in the patch:)
Chris.Guan
Comment 8
2012-02-06 21:56:30 PST
(In reply to
comment #5
)
> (From update of
attachment 125762
[details]
) > View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=125762&action=review
> > please, lets find a better name than clientIsOk, since we are around :) > > > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:9 > > + 2. Remove an ASSERT in NetworkManger, becuase never hit it. > > because* it is never hit
thanks, let me change it:)
Chris.Guan
Comment 9
2012-02-06 22:08:58 PST
(In reply to
comment #8
)
> (In reply to
comment #5
) > > (From update of
attachment 125762
[details]
[details]) > > View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=125762&action=review
> > > > please, lets find a better name than clientIsOk, since we are around :) > > > > > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:9 > > > + 2. Remove an ASSERT in NetworkManger, becuase never hit it. > > > > because* it is never hit > > thanks, let me change it:)
what about "isClientAvailable()" for "clientIsOk"?
Leo Yang
Comment 10
2012-02-06 22:10:42 PST
(In reply to
comment #7
)
> (In reply to
comment #6
) > > Why remove m_isRunning and the ASSERT? What about guard it with #ifndef NDEBUG macro so that m_isRunning and NetworkJob::isRunning() are there only for Debug mode. > > No, it dose not make any help, because the code log makes sure this assert is never hit, because the delete timer is firing after handleNotifyClose() in which > definitely m_isRunning was set to false. I added this comments in my change log in the patch:)
ASSERT is designed for never being hit. We ASSERT(!job->isRunning()) to make sure we don't delete a job on which handleNotifyClose() never be called. If you remove this ASSERT, we can't catch the code offending this assumption any more.
Chris.Guan
Comment 11
2012-02-06 22:18:15 PST
(In reply to
comment #10
)
> (In reply to
comment #7
) > > (In reply to
comment #6
) > > > Why remove m_isRunning and the ASSERT? What about guard it with #ifndef NDEBUG macro so that m_isRunning and NetworkJob::isRunning() are there only for Debug mode. > > > > No, it dose not make any help, because the code log makes sure this assert is never hit, because the delete timer is firing after handleNotifyClose() in which > > definitely m_isRunning was set to false. I added this comments in my change log in the patch:) > > > ASSERT is designed for never being hit. We ASSERT(!job->isRunning()) to make sure we don't delete a job on which handleNotifyClose() never be called. If you remove this ASSERT, we can't catch the code offending this assumption any more.
yes, you are right, but deleteJob() is a private function of NetworkManger, and only the friend class of networkjob can use it, actually it is deleteTimer. refactor?
Leo Yang
Comment 12
2012-02-06 22:27:41 PST
(In reply to
comment #11
)
> (In reply to
comment #10
) > > (In reply to
comment #7
) > > > (In reply to
comment #6
) > > > > Why remove m_isRunning and the ASSERT? What about guard it with #ifndef NDEBUG macro so that m_isRunning and NetworkJob::isRunning() are there only for Debug mode. > > > > > > No, it dose not make any help, because the code log makes sure this assert is never hit, because the delete timer is firing after handleNotifyClose() in which > > > definitely m_isRunning was set to false. I added this comments in my change log in the patch:) > > > > > > ASSERT is designed for never being hit. We ASSERT(!job->isRunning()) to make sure we don't delete a job on which handleNotifyClose() never be called. If you remove this ASSERT, we can't catch the code offending this assumption any more. > > yes, you are right, but deleteJob() is a private function of NetworkManger, and only the friend class of networkjob can use it, actually it is deleteTimer. refactor?
Why refactor? As long as you keep NetworkJob::isRunning() as public and keep NetowrkManager::deleteJob() AS IS, I don't think a refactor is required. My suggestion is, just as I said in the previous comment, guarding NetworkJob::isRuning() and NetworkJob::m_isRunning by #ifndef NDEBUG.
Chris.Guan
Comment 13
2012-02-06 23:09:26 PST
(In reply to
comment #12
)
> (In reply to
comment #11
) > > (In reply to
comment #10
) > > > (In reply to
comment #7
) > > > > (In reply to
comment #6
) > > > > > Why remove m_isRunning and the ASSERT? What about guard it with #ifndef NDEBUG macro so that m_isRunning and NetworkJob::isRunning() are there only for Debug mode. > > > > > > > > No, it dose not make any help, because the code log makes sure this assert is never hit, because the delete timer is firing after handleNotifyClose() in which > > > > definitely m_isRunning was set to false. I added this comments in my change log in the patch:) > > > > > > > > > ASSERT is designed for never being hit. We ASSERT(!job->isRunning()) to make sure we don't delete a job on which handleNotifyClose() never be called. If you remove this ASSERT, we can't catch the code offending this assumption any more. > > > > yes, you are right, but deleteJob() is a private function of NetworkManger, and only the friend class of networkjob can use it, actually it is deleteTimer. refactor? > Why refactor? As long as you keep NetworkJob::isRunning() as public and keep NetowrkManager::deleteJob() AS IS, I don't think a refactor is required. My suggestion is, just as I said in the previous comment, guarding NetworkJob::isRuning() and NetworkJob::m_isRunning by #ifndef NDEBUG.
yes, I understand it, let me fix your comments in next patch.
Chris.Guan
Comment 14
2012-02-07 00:17:55 PST
Created
attachment 125777
[details]
Patch
Rob Buis
Comment 15
2012-02-07 04:57:53 PST
Comment on
attachment 125777
[details]
Patch LGTM
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 16
2012-02-07 05:41:45 PST
Comment on
attachment 125777
[details]
Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 125777 Committed
r106931
: <
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/106931
>
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 17
2012-02-07 05:41:50 PST
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug