Bug 87365 - ProgressEvent JSC binding should have no static table
Summary: ProgressEvent JSC binding should have no static table
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: WebCore JavaScript (show other bugs)
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)
Hardware: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Leo Yang
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 82156
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-05-24 03:18 PDT by Leo Yang
Modified: 2012-05-28 20:25 PDT (History)
11 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Patch (1.78 KB, patch)
2012-05-24 03:20 PDT, Leo Yang
levin: review-
Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Patch v2 (1.94 KB, patch)
2012-05-28 03:06 PDT, Leo Yang
no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Leo Yang 2012-05-24 03:18:40 PDT
ProgressEvent could be used in filesystem FileWriter in worker thread, so we should add ProgressEvent in idl file.
Comment 1 Leo Yang 2012-05-24 03:20:58 PDT
Created attachment 143776 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 David Levin 2012-05-24 11:15:45 PDT
Comment on attachment 143776 [details]
Patch

Is it possible to write a test for this? It seems like there should be some thing that is noticeably failing.
Comment 3 Leo Yang 2012-05-28 03:06:46 PDT
Created attachment 144316 [details]
Patch v2

It's covered by existing test actually.
Comment 4 George Staikos 2012-05-28 10:41:10 PDT
Comment on attachment 144316 [details]
Patch v2

Covered by existing tests, no regressions on any platform according to bots.  reasonable change.  r+
Comment 5 WebKit Review Bot 2012-05-28 11:17:47 PDT
Comment on attachment 144316 [details]
Patch v2

Clearing flags on attachment: 144316

Committed r118698: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/118698>
Comment 6 WebKit Review Bot 2012-05-28 11:17:53 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.
Comment 7 David Levin 2012-05-28 11:56:09 PDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=144316) [details]
> Patch v2
> 
> It's covered by existing test actually.

Was fast/filesystem/workers/file-writer-events.html failing before this?

If so, why wasn't it removed from any skipped files?
Comment 8 Leo Yang 2012-05-28 18:40:29 PDT
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Created an attachment (id=144316) [details] [details]
> > Patch v2
> > 
> > It's covered by existing test actually.
> 
> Was fast/filesystem/workers/file-writer-events.html failing before this?
> 
> If so, why wasn't it removed from any skipped files?

It seems that all platforms(except for chromium) don't support FileSystem API in upstreaming. Chromium is using v8 so it's not affected by this. We are implementing FileSystem API for blackberry porting and found this problem. Blackberry implement of FileSystem API will be upstreaming and you will see we don't skip fast/filesystem.
Comment 9 David Levin 2012-05-28 20:25:03 PDT
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > Created an attachment (id=144316) [details] [details] [details]
> > > Patch v2
> > > 
> > > It's covered by existing test actually.
> > 
> > Was fast/filesystem/workers/file-writer-events.html failing before this?
> > 
> > If so, why wasn't it removed from any skipped files?
> 
> It seems that all platforms(except for chromium) don't support FileSystem API in upstreaming. Chromium is using v8 so it's not affected by this. We are implementing FileSystem API for blackberry porting and found this problem. Blackberry implement of FileSystem API will be upstreaming and you will see we don't skip fast/filesystem.

Thanks!