RESOLVED FIXED Bug 78224
Code generators should support multiple values for the [CallWith=] attribute
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78224
Summary Code generators should support multiple values for the [CallWith=] attribute
Kentaro Hara
Reported 2012-02-09 05:13:08 PST
Currently we can specify only one value for one [CallWith=], like [CallWith=ScriptExecutionContext] or [CallWith=ScriptState]. To reduce redundant IDL attributes, we are planning to support multiple values for [CallWith=], like [CallWith=ScriptExecutionContext|ScriptArguments|CallStack]. In this bug, we make a change on code generators.
Attachments
Patch (74.61 KB, patch)
2012-02-09 05:29 PST, Kentaro Hara
no flags
rebased patch for commit (74.25 KB, patch)
2012-02-09 17:08 PST, Kentaro Hara
no flags
Kentaro Hara
Comment 1 2012-02-09 05:29:30 PST
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 2 2012-02-09 05:30:41 PST
Attachment 126287 [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/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:326: Local variables should never be PassRefPtr (see http://webkit.org/coding/RefPtr.html). [readability/pass_ptr] [5] Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:341: Local variables should never be PassRefPtr (see http://webkit.org/coding/RefPtr.html). [readability/pass_ptr] [5] Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:1202: Local variables should never be PassRefPtr (see http://webkit.org/coding/RefPtr.html). [readability/pass_ptr] [5] Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:1215: Tests for true/false, null/non-null, and zero/non-zero should all be done without equality comparisons. [readability/comparison_to_zero] [5] Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:1229: Local variables should never be PassRefPtr (see http://webkit.org/coding/RefPtr.html). [readability/pass_ptr] [5] Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:1246: Tests for true/false, null/non-null, and zero/non-zero should all be done without equality comparisons. [readability/comparison_to_zero] [5] Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:1264: Local variables should never be PassRefPtr (see http://webkit.org/coding/RefPtr.html). [readability/pass_ptr] [5] Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/GObject/WebKitDOMTestObj.cpp:1277: Tests for true/false, null/non-null, and zero/non-zero should all be done without equality comparisons. [readability/comparison_to_zero] [5] Total errors found: 8 in 14 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Adam Barth
Comment 3 2012-02-09 11:04:59 PST
Comment on attachment 126287 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=126287&action=review > Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/CodeGenerator.pm:641 > +sub CallWithContains This doesn't seem specific to CallWith. Should we give this a more general name like "ExtendedAttributeContains" or "AttributeContains"? > Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/CodeGeneratorV8.pm:1457 > sub GenerateCallWith Should this function error out if there's something in the CallWith attribute that we don't understand?
Kentaro Hara
Comment 4 2012-02-09 17:08:54 PST
Created attachment 126407 [details] rebased patch for commit
Kentaro Hara
Comment 5 2012-02-09 17:10:52 PST
(In reply to comment #3) > (From update of attachment 126287 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=126287&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/CodeGenerator.pm:641 > > +sub CallWithContains > > This doesn't seem specific to CallWith. Should we give this a more general name like "ExtendedAttributeContains" or "AttributeContains"? Makes sense. Renamed to "ExtendedAttributeContains". > > Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/CodeGeneratorV8.pm:1457 > > sub GenerateCallWith > > Should this function error out if there's something in the CallWith attribute that we don't understand? For now I would like to skip it. I am planning to implement "IDL attribute checker" after cleaning up all IDLs, and include the CallWith values check there.
Kentaro Hara
Comment 6 2012-02-09 17:12:05 PST
Kentaro Hara
Comment 7 2012-02-09 17:22:56 PST
Comment on attachment 126287 [details] Patch Landed manually to avoid style check errors in generated code.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.