Document the tracking bugs of some straight-forward IDL bugs

Document the tracking bugs of some straight-forward IDL bugs

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196509

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 22:46:08]

philipj@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ rbyers@chromium.org

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 22:46:09]

PTAL, here were a few that seem like good candidates. I also filed
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=496400 but didn't sprinkle
it all over the place.

Can you tweak these bugs so that they end up in the filter you want?
Type-Launch-OWP isn't a common label so that made me nervous.

It wasn't as easy as I thought to find these bugs between the many
easier-to-fix-than-file-a-bug and could-get-crazy issues in IDL.

Let me know if you want more based on IDL TODOs or use counters looking ripe for
action.

[Rick Byers, 2015-06-04 15:00:02]

On 2015/06/03 22:46:09, philipj wrote:
> PTAL, here were a few that seem like good candidates. I also filed
> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=496400 but didn't sprinkle
> it all over the place.
> 
> Can you tweak these bugs so that they end up in the filter you want?
> Type-Launch-OWP isn't a common label so that made me nervous.

Done.  Yeah people may object to this use of OWP launch bugs, but it seemed
appropriate to me and I think we've generally been under-using them.  They were
intended as a way to let us track web-exposed API changes, but we mostly haven't
been using them much I think.

> It wasn't as easy as I thought to find these bugs between the many
> easier-to-fix-than-file-a-bug and could-get-crazy issues in IDL.

Are you going to take care of the 'easier to fix than file a bug' ones yourself?
 Or do you want to try to describe how to identify them and we can solicit
others to help?

> Let me know if you want more based on IDL TODOs or use counters looking ripe
for
> action.

Looks great, thanks!  LGTM

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 15:24:58]

On 2015/06/04 15:00:02, Rick Byers wrote:
> On 2015/06/03 22:46:09, philipj wrote:
> > PTAL, here were a few that seem like good candidates. I also filed
> > https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=496400 but didn't
sprinkle
> > it all over the place.
> > 
> > Can you tweak these bugs so that they end up in the filter you want?
> > Type-Launch-OWP isn't a common label so that made me nervous.
> 
> Done.  Yeah people may object to this use of OWP launch bugs, but it seemed
> appropriate to me and I think we've generally been under-using them.  They
were
> intended as a way to let us track web-exposed API changes, but we mostly
haven't
> been using them much I think.

OK, let's try it!

> > It wasn't as easy as I thought to find these bugs between the many
> > easier-to-fix-than-file-a-bug and could-get-crazy issues in IDL.
> 
> Are you going to take care of the 'easier to fix than file a bug' ones
yourself?
>  Or do you want to try to describe how to identify them and we can solicit
> others to help?

Tricky question. One such case is removing HTMLDocument.compatMode (is already
on Document), where I think that would be reasonable to land with no test
changes at all if the tests pass, so it's a 1-line changes vs. filing a bug to
have someone else do it.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a clear pattern to the very trivial stuff.
If I do a full sweep of the IDL files, I could collect them all into one bug for
reference, so that it's just one line per thing to write. Otherwise, it's just a
matter of looking at the IDL files and doing the things that seem very, very
trivial.

> > Let me know if you want more based on IDL TODOs or use counters looking ripe
> for
> > action.
> 
> Looks great, thanks!  LGTM

Thanks!

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 15:25:02]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 15:25:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1154913004/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 16:28:04]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196509