Bug 87097 – [Chromium][API] Introduce WebPermissionClient::allowWebComponents()

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: FIXED
• Component: Platform

[Hajime Morrita]

This is going to be an all-in-one API to turn on/off the web component features.

[Hajime Morrita]

Created attachment 143233 [details]
Patch

[WebKit Review Bot]

Please wait for approval from [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] or [e-mail] before submitting, as this patch contains changes to the Chromium public API. See also https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/ChromiumWebKitAPI.

[Kent Tamura]

Comment on attachment 143233 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=143233&action=review

> Source/WebKit/chromium/src/FrameLoaderClientImpl.cpp:248
> +    return enabledAsRuntimeFeatures;

Is it safe to use this value as a fallback?

[Dimitri Glazkov (Google)]

Comment on attachment 143233 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=143233&action=review

> Source/WebKit/chromium/public/WebPermissionClient.h:92
> +    // Controls whether enabling Web Components API for this frame.

"whether Web Components API are enabled for this frame."

> Source/WebKit/chromium/src/FrameLoaderClientImpl.cpp:242
> +bool FrameLoaderClientImpl::shadowDOMAllowed(bool enabledAsRuntimeFeatures)

enabledAsRuntimeFeatures -> enabledAsRuntimeFeature

[Darin Fisher (:fishd, Google)]

Comment on attachment 143233 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=143233&action=review

> Source/WebKit/chromium/src/FrameLoaderClientImpl.cpp:246
> +        return webview->permissionClient()->allowWebComponents(m_webFrame, enabledAsRuntimeFeatures);

why are we mapping shadowDOMAllowed to allowWebComponents?  should the FrameLoaderClient method be renamed to allowWebComponents as well?  or should the API one change to say "shadow DOM" instead?

[Dimitri Glazkov (Google)]

(In reply to comment #5)
> (From update of attachment 143233 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=143233&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebKit/chromium/src/FrameLoaderClientImpl.cpp:246
> > +        return webview->permissionClient()->allowWebComponents(m_webFrame, enabledAsRuntimeFeatures);
> 
> why are we mapping shadowDOMAllowed to allowWebComponents?  should the FrameLoaderClient method be renamed to allowWebComponents as well?  or should the API one change to say "shadow DOM" instead?

This is a good question. Initially, I thought that we would make the decision on what flags substitute web Components at the chrome://flags UI level and check/uncheck boxes as a group.

Morrita-san's patch attempts to move it to WebKit API layer, which seems on the short term, because we don't need to go and modify the chrome://flags UI.

[Hajime Morrita]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (From update of attachment 143233 [details] [details])
> > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=143233&action=review
> > 
> > > Source/WebKit/chromium/src/FrameLoaderClientImpl.cpp:246
> > > +        return webview->permissionClient()->allowWebComponents(m_webFrame, enabledAsRuntimeFeatures);
> > 
> > why are we mapping shadowDOMAllowed to allowWebComponents?  should the FrameLoaderClient method be renamed to allowWebComponents as well?  or should the API one change to say "shadow DOM" instead?
> 
> This is a good question. Initially, I thought that we would make the decision on what flags substitute web Components at the chrome://flags UI level and check/uncheck boxes as a group.
> 
> Morrita-san's patch attempts to move it to WebKit API layer, which seems on the short term, because we don't need to go and modify the chrome://flags UI.
Yeah, the intention here is to let allowWebComponents to cover 
several WebCore flags, like scoped stylesheet and upcoming other features.

[Hajime Morrita]

Comment on attachment 143233 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=143233&action=review

>> Source/WebKit/chromium/src/FrameLoaderClientImpl.cpp:248
>> +    return enabledAsRuntimeFeatures;
> 
> Is it safe to use this value as a fallback?

Yes. This API is to relax the restriction, not to limit it.
This is going to return true for some frames even if the default is false.

[Hajime Morrita]

Created attachment 143405 [details]
Patch for landing

[WebKit Review Bot]

Comment on attachment 143405 [details]
Patch for landing

Clearing flags on attachment: 143405

Committed r118097: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/118097>

[WebKit Review Bot]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.