RESOLVED FIXED86541
Add didFinishProgress BundleUIClient callback
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86541
Summary Add didFinishProgress BundleUIClient callback
Dinu Jacob
Reported 2012-05-15 16:05:25 PDT
Add didFinishProgress BundleUIClient callback for WebKitTestRunner.
Attachments
Patch (15.85 KB, patch)
2012-05-15 16:19 PDT, Dinu Jacob
kenneth: review+
Patch with indentation fix (15.88 KB, patch)
2012-05-16 06:11 PDT, Dinu Jacob
no flags
Dinu Jacob
Comment 1 2012-05-15 16:19:23 PDT
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
Comment 2 2012-05-16 00:21:36 PDT
Comment on attachment 142092 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=142092&action=review > Source/WebKit2/WebProcess/qt/QtBuiltinBundlePage.cpp:77 > + 0 // didFinishProgress indentation is inconsistent with above lines
Dinu Jacob
Comment 3 2012-05-16 06:11:48 PDT
Created attachment 142237 [details] Patch with indentation fix
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 4 2012-05-16 06:46:55 PDT
Comment on attachment 142237 [details] Patch with indentation fix Clearing flags on attachment: 142237 Committed r117276: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/117276>
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 5 2012-05-16 06:47:04 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
mitz
Comment 6 2012-05-16 07:27:59 PDT
Is it safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number?
Brady Eidson
Comment 7 2012-05-16 08:35:47 PDT
(In reply to comment #6) > Is it safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number? No, it was not safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number. This broke WebKit nightlies, for example.
Brady Eidson
Comment 8 2012-05-16 08:40:20 PDT
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Is it safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number? > > No, it was not safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number. This broke WebKit nightlies, for example. Apologies - I thought this was on a version 0 client. It was on a version 1 client. We're good!
Dinu Jacob
Comment 9 2012-05-16 08:41:38 PDT
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Is it safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number? > > > > No, it was not safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number. This broke WebKit nightlies, for example. > > Apologies - I thought this was on a version 0 client. It was on a version 1 client. We're good! Thanks!
Brady Eidson
Comment 10 2012-05-16 08:51:32 PDT
I have a deeper question about this, though. This change unskipped a qt-wk2 test only... Was this truly QT-WK2 specific? On the surface it seems like if this callback was truly important for this test, then no WK2 port could have passed without this callback. What am I missing?
Brady Eidson
Comment 11 2012-05-16 08:58:11 PDT
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Is it safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number? > > > > No, it was not safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number. This broke WebKit nightlies, for example. > > Apologies - I thought this was on a version 0 client. It was on a version 1 client. We're good! FWIW, we got confused about which client was changing because the bug and Change/Commit Log said BundleUIClient, but it was actually the BundleLoaderClient :)
Dinu Jacob
Comment 12 2012-05-16 08:59:37 PDT
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > > Is it safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number? > > > > > > No, it was not safe to add to this client interface without bumping the version number. This broke WebKit nightlies, for example. > > > > Apologies - I thought this was on a version 0 client. It was on a version 1 client. We're good! > > FWIW, we got confused about which client was changing because the bug and Change/Commit Log said BundleUIClient, but it was actually the BundleLoaderClient :) Sorry about that. I realized it also now :(
Dinu Jacob
Comment 13 2012-05-16 09:00:17 PDT
(In reply to comment #10) > I have a deeper question about this, though. > > This change unskipped a qt-wk2 test only... Was this truly QT-WK2 specific? > > On the surface it seems like if this callback was truly important for this test, then no WK2 port could have passed without this callback. > > What am I missing? I meant to check in other wk2 skipped lists too. But forgot about it before submitting my patch. I see it in mac-wk2 and gitk-wk2 lists as well.
Brady Eidson
Comment 14 2012-05-16 09:45:24 PDT
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.