Remove support for "magic" iframe
Created attachment 132713 [details] Patch
This will be SOSO awesome if it lands before next Tuesday m19 branch point :)!
Please wait for approval from fishd@chromium.org before submitting because this patch contains changes to the Chromium public API.
Attachment 132713 [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/loader/FrameLoaderClient.h:259: The parameter name "url" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5] Source/WebCore/loader/FrameLoaderClient.h:259: The parameter name "ownerElement" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5] Total errors found: 2 in 11 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment on attachment 132713 [details] Patch Thanks a lot Adam for doing this patch! WebFrameLoader::didAdoptURLLoader(..) should also be removed. There are layout tests as well, but they should fail on EWS and their names are very obviously-magic-iframe-related.
Comment on attachment 132713 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=132713&action=review > Source/WebKit/chromium/public/WebFrameClient.h:-289 > - // This frame adopted the resource that is being loaded. This happens when > - // an iframe, that is loading a subresource, is transferred between windows. > - virtual void didAdoptURLLoader(WebURLLoader*) { } Yeah, we need to remove the implementation of this function on the Chromium side.
Comment on attachment 132713 [details] Patch Attachment 132713 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/11994070
Comment on attachment 132713 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=132713&action=review >> Source/WebKit/chromium/public/WebFrameClient.h:-289 >> - virtual void didAdoptURLLoader(WebURLLoader*) { } > > Yeah, we need to remove the implementation of this function on the Chromium side. LGTM for nuking this method.
Created attachment 132751 [details] Patch
Attachment 132751 [details] did not pass style-queue: Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'LayoutTests/ChangeLog', u'LayoutTests/fast..." exit_code: 1 Source/WebCore/loader/FrameLoaderClient.h:259: The parameter name "url" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5] Source/WebCore/loader/FrameLoaderClient.h:259: The parameter name "ownerElement" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5] Total errors found: 2 in 15 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Created attachment 132752 [details] Patch
Attachment 132752 [details] did not pass style-queue: Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'LayoutTests/ChangeLog', u'LayoutTests/fast..." exit_code: 1 Source/WebCore/loader/FrameLoaderClient.h:259: The parameter name "url" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5] Source/WebCore/loader/FrameLoaderClient.h:259: The parameter name "ownerElement" adds no information, so it should be removed. [readability/parameter_name] [5] Total errors found: 2 in 16 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment on attachment 132752 [details] Patch Huge win! Thanks!
Comment on attachment 132752 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 132752 Committed r111361: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/111361>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
(In reply to comment #14) > (From update of attachment 132752 [details]) > Clearing flags on attachment: 132752 > > Committed r111361: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/111361> It appears that you removed all the fast/frames/iframe-reparenting* tests except iframe-reparenting-unique-name.html. Was it intentional to leave that one in?
> Was it intentional to leave that one in? Yeah, that test still seems to make sense without the feature.