RESOLVED FIXED 35205
[Chromium API] Disambiguate allowJavaScript from didFailToExecuteJavaScript 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35205
Summary [Chromium API] Disambiguate allowJavaScript from didFailToExecuteJavaScript
Adam Barth
Reported 2010-02-20 22:04:14 PST
[Chromium API] Disambiguous allowJavaScript from didFailToExecuteJavaScript
Attachments
Patch (4.94 KB, patch)
2010-02-20 22:06 PST, Adam Barth 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Patch (29.45 KB, patch)
2010-02-21 01:03 PST, Adam Barth 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
patch v3 (29.13 KB, patch)
2010-02-24 14:17 PST, Peter Kasting 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
patch v4 (29.12 KB, patch)
2010-02-24 14:34 PST, Peter Kasting 		fishd: review+
fishd: commit-queue+
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Show Obsolete (3) View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Adam Barth
Comment 1 2010-02-20 22:06:39 PST
Created attachment 49141 [details] Patch
Peter Kasting
Comment 2 2010-02-20 22:48:10 PST
You might want to comment more (perhaps in comments on the function declarations?) on why a piece of code would care whether it can execute script if it doesn't actually intend to execute script. There are other possible APIs here whose usefulness probably depends on the answer. (I'm mostly worried about future code calling allowJavaScript() without calling didFailToExecuteJavaScript() when it should. Perhaps we should create a single access point you call when you want to run script that checks if it's legal and calls this callback if not, or something.)
Adam Barth
Comment 3 2010-02-20 23:55:00 PST
Comment on attachment 49141 [details] Patch This patch is wrong because V8 cheatzors.
Adam Barth
Comment 4 2010-02-21 01:03:06 PST
Created attachment 49146 [details] Patch
Adam Barth
Comment 5 2010-02-21 01:04:02 PST
Done and done. This patch got a bit bigger and probably harder to merge, but I think you're right that we should force clients to be explicit about this bit so we do the right thing in the future.
Peter Kasting
Comment 6 2010-02-22 15:45:18 PST
Comment on attachment 49146 [details] Patch > +enum ReasonForCallingCanExecuteScripts { > + AboutToExecuteScript, > + NotAboutToExecuteScript > +}; I wonder if there could be a better name for the second choice... "NotPlanningToExecuteScript"? "JustCuriousAboutCurrentSetting"? I dunno :(. In any case it seems like rationale for this enum should be given in comments above it.
Darin Fisher (:fishd, Google)
Comment 7 2010-02-23 14:38:48 PST
Comment on attachment 49146 [details] Patch > + [Chromium API] Disambiguate allowJavaScript from didFailToExecuteJavaScript As discussed elsewhere, I'd still much prefer a name for didFailToExecuteJavaScript that better indicates failure due to a policy decision as opposed to other problems such as a syntax error. How about renaming this method to didNotAllowScript? That nicely corresponds with allowScript.
Peter Kasting
Comment 8 2010-02-24 14:17:01 PST
Created attachment 49435 [details] patch v3 Renamed didFailToExecuteJavaScript() to didNotAllowScript(). Updated patch to apply against current tree.
Peter Kasting
Comment 9 2010-02-24 14:34:45 PST
Created attachment 49440 [details] patch v4 Last patch didn't fix everywhere because I didn't realize the first patch used two different function names (for no good reason)
Peter Kasting
Comment 10 2010-02-24 16:33:15 PST
Landed in r55207.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.