Sync event interfaces with the UI Events spec

Sync event interfaces with the UI Events spec

https://w3c.github.io/uievents/

There are no changes to the generated code other than the order of
things, naming and the added use counter.

BUG=460722
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196493

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-02 22:05:10]

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

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-02 22:05:11]

PTAL

[Rick Byers, 2015-06-03 13:42:13]

This is great, thanks!  LGTM

Curious: have you just been doing the comparison with the specs manually?  Any
thoughts on the right way to maintain "spec alignment" over the long run?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Keyb...
File Source/core/events/KeyboardEvent.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Keyb...
Source/core/events/KeyboardEvent.idl:62: [Measure] readonly attribute DOMString
keyIdentifier;
nit: Measure isn't documented at
https://www.chromium.org/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-attributes (only
MeasureAs), would you mind adding some documentation?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
File Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl:34: // TODO(philipj): button should be short,
not unsigned short.
note I believe this was a change as a result of pointer events (where a -1 value
was added only on PointerEvent instances which are a subclass of MouseEvent) and
the consensus was that it should be sufficiently web compatible.

I'd consider such a change in IDL to be 'trivial' and so something we could
probably do without a formal intent process or anything.  Still best to keep out
of this CL, but maybe you or mustaq (cc'd) want to land a tiny CL to do that
after this one lands?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl:38: // TODO(philipj): boolean
getModifierState(DOMString keyArg);
I wonder if we should be filing Available bugs for each of these unimplemented
APIs?  Some of them may be be a good opportunity for someone getting started in
blink.  I guess searching all IDL files for 'TODO' should be a good way of
finding all such potential work, so perhaps that's sufficient.  WDYT?  Did you
have concrete plans for next steps for things like this?

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 14:40:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Keyb...
File Source/core/events/KeyboardEvent.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Keyb...
Source/core/events/KeyboardEvent.idl:62: [Measure] readonly attribute DOMString
keyIdentifier;
On 2015/06/03 13:42:13, Rick Byers wrote:
> nit: Measure isn't documented at
> https://www.chromium.org/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-attributes (only
> MeasureAs), would you mind adding some documentation?

Wow, editing that page was a crazy mess, but here it is:
https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-a...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
File Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl:34: // TODO(philipj): button should be short,
not unsigned short.
On 2015/06/03 13:42:13, Rick Byers wrote:
> note I believe this was a change as a result of pointer events (where a -1
value
> was added only on PointerEvent instances which are a subclass of MouseEvent)
and
> the consensus was that it should be sufficiently web compatible.
> 
> I'd consider such a change in IDL to be 'trivial' and so something we could
> probably do without a formal intent process or anything.  Still best to keep
out
> of this CL, but maybe you or mustaq (cc'd) want to land a tiny CL to do that
> after this one lands? 

I agree that this kind of thing doesn't need an intent to implement (or ship).
I've been doing the spec sync work by avoiding observable or non-trivial changes
in the initial sync. I fix some things in follow-up, but far from all, but I
hope to make small fixes like this my side project once I've finished the
initial sweep. Figuring out which changes are web compatible would be years of
work, so I certainly can't do it all myself.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl:38: // TODO(philipj): boolean
getModifierState(DOMString keyArg);
On 2015/06/03 13:42:13, Rick Byers wrote:
> I wonder if we should be filing Available bugs for each of these unimplemented
> APIs?  Some of them may be be a good opportunity for someone getting started
in
> blink.  I guess searching all IDL files for 'TODO' should be a good way of
> finding all such potential work, so perhaps that's sufficient.  WDYT?  Did you
> have concrete plans for next steps for things like this?

Some missing thing could be trivial, but I suspect that a large proportion of
missing things on old interfaces require looking into the history of the
interfaces, current browser support and web compat concerns. That would be a
terrible first experience with Blink, but in specific cases we could do it. Do
you think this one in particular would be easy to fix?

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 14:44:52]

On 2015/06/03 13:42:13, Rick Byers wrote:
> This is great, thanks!  LGTM
> 
> Curious: have you just been doing the comparison with the specs manually?  Any
> thoughts on the right way to maintain "spec alignment" over the long run?

Yes, I'm just eyeballing the differences, quite likely missing some things. At
this point that's not a problem, because most of the work is in figuring out
which the most up-to-date spec is, and deciding which changes can be done
immediately and which would be web observable or otherwise risky.

Once done, I hope to have a script using the spec links in each IDL file to find
the interface in a spec, parse both, and compare them. jsbell@ has experimented
with a tool for that:
http://inexorabletash.github.io/idldiff/

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 14:45:11]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 14:45:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1159113007/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 14:48:53]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 14:48:55]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_blink_compile_dbg on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/mac_blink_compile_dbg/bu...)
  mac_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/mac_blink_rel/builds/57475)

[Rick Byers, 2015-06-03 14:50:29]

> 
> Yes, I'm just eyeballing the differences, quite likely missing some things. At
> this point that's not a problem, because most of the work is in figuring out
> which the most up-to-date spec is, and deciding which changes can be done
> immediately and which would be web observable or otherwise risky.

Yep, makes sense - thanks.

> Once done, I hope to have a script using the spec links in each IDL file to
find
> the interface in a spec, parse both, and compare them. jsbell@ has
experimented
> with a tool for that:
> http://inexorabletash.github.io/idldiff/

Awesome!  I was hoping someone was looking into something like this.  Obviously
there's tons of low hanging fruit to work through before really worrying about
something like this, but I was hoping there was some longer term path to really
lock in the wins of all the manual effort you're doing now.  Sounds great,
thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Keyb...
File Source/core/events/KeyboardEvent.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Keyb...
Source/core/events/KeyboardEvent.idl:62: [Measure] readonly attribute DOMString
keyIdentifier;
On 2015/06/03 14:40:48, philipj wrote:
> On 2015/06/03 13:42:13, Rick Byers wrote:
> > nit: Measure isn't documented at
> > https://www.chromium.org/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-attributes (only
> > MeasureAs), would you mind adding some documentation?
> 
> Wow, editing that page was a crazy mess, but here it is:
>
https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-a...

Perfect, thank you!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
File Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl:34: // TODO(philipj): button should be short,
not unsigned short.
On 2015/06/03 14:40:48, philipj wrote:
> On 2015/06/03 13:42:13, Rick Byers wrote:
> > note I believe this was a change as a result of pointer events (where a -1
> value
> > was added only on PointerEvent instances which are a subclass of MouseEvent)
> and
> > the consensus was that it should be sufficiently web compatible.
> > 
> > I'd consider such a change in IDL to be 'trivial' and so something we could
> > probably do without a formal intent process or anything.  Still best to keep
> out
> > of this CL, but maybe you or mustaq (cc'd) want to land a tiny CL to do that
> > after this one lands? 
> 
> I agree that this kind of thing doesn't need an intent to implement (or ship).
> I've been doing the spec sync work by avoiding observable or non-trivial
changes
> in the initial sync. I fix some things in follow-up, but far from all, but I
> hope to make small fixes like this my side project once I've finished the
> initial sweep. Figuring out which changes are web compatible would be years of
> work, so I certainly can't do it all myself.

Yes, plus IMHO your time is much better spent providing guidance / review to
leverage your expertise here.  We can certainly get people to help - let's
discuss more offline.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/diff/20001/Source/core/events/Mous...
Source/core/events/MouseEvent.idl:38: // TODO(philipj): boolean
getModifierState(DOMString keyArg);
On 2015/06/03 14:40:48, philipj wrote:
> On 2015/06/03 13:42:13, Rick Byers wrote:
> > I wonder if we should be filing Available bugs for each of these
unimplemented
> > APIs?  Some of them may be be a good opportunity for someone getting started
> in
> > blink.  I guess searching all IDL files for 'TODO' should be a good way of
> > finding all such potential work, so perhaps that's sufficient.  WDYT?  Did
you
> > have concrete plans for next steps for things like this?
> 
> Some missing thing could be trivial, but I suspect that a large proportion of
> missing things on old interfaces require looking into the history of the
> interfaces, current browser support and web compat concerns. That would be a
> terrible first experience with Blink, but in specific cases we could do it. Do
> you think this one in particular would be easy to fix?

Yeah many are non-trivial but still somewhat formulaic (compare behavior on
other browsers, etc.).  This one, for example, is probably simpler than the
addition of 'key' and 'code' that's being driven by a Samsung engineer right
now.

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 15:59:51]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 15:59:51]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from rbyers@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/#ps40001
(title: "rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 16:00:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1159113007/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 18:02:25]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 18:02:27]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/6...)

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 18:22:33]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 18:23:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1159113007/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 20:27:40]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 20:27:41]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/6...)

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 21:21:26]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 21:22:35]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1159113007/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 21:56:19]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 21:56:20]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/6...)

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 07:26:42]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 07:26:43]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from rbyers@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1159113007/#ps60001
(title: "rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 07:27:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1159113007/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 10:47:01]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 10:47:02]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/65249)

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 11:11:49]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 11:12:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1159113007/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 12:04:23]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196493