Removing TreatNullAs=NullString from SVGAngle.valueAsString and SVGLength.valueAsString attributes

Removing TreatNullAs=NullString from SVGAngle.valueAsString and SVGLength.valueAsString attributes

As per specs these should not have TreatNullAs=NullString
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/types.html#InterfaceSVGAngle
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/types.html#InterfaceSVGLength

Specs doesn't say anything about Null case.

But, Behavior of FF & IE:
IE and FF both throws SyntaxError in case of null as the parameter of setValueAsString.

This cl also removes the TODO for constructor in SVGAngle and SVGLength

BUG=460722
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=199176

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-07-20 11:38:39]

paritosh.in@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ pdr@chromium.org, philipj@opera.com

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-07-20 11:38:40]

Please have a look.

[philipj_slow, 2015-07-20 11:47:02]

Can you please test and document the behavior in Firefox and IE? In cases like
these it's possible that the spec says something that no browser actually
implements.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl
File Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.id...
Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl:25: // TODO(philipj): SVGAngle should have
constructors. crbug.com/366541
Please restore this TODO, it wasn't fixed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGLength.idl
File Source/core/svg/SVGLength.idl (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGLength.i...
Source/core/svg/SVGLength.idl:25: // TODO(philipj): SVGLength should have
constructors. crbug.com/366541
Ditto.

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-07-20 12:15:02]

Thanks Philip
I tested the behavior of IE and FF and found that, IE and FF both throws
SyntaxError in case of null as the parameter of setValueAsString.

Updated cl description with this behavior and restored TODO.
Please have a look.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl
File Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.id...
Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl:25: // TODO(philipj): SVGAngle should have
constructors. crbug.com/366541
On 2015/07/20 11:47:02, philipj wrote:
> Please restore this TODO, it wasn't fixed.

Restored. Actually, I removed this after seeing
https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/commit/b1804cab09299a1c5334a6afded382288ee98403
and status=WontFix on http://crbug.com/366541.

[philipj_slow, 2015-07-20 13:04:53]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl
File Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.id...
Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl:25: // TODO(philipj): SVGAngle should have
constructors. crbug.com/366541
On 2015/07/20 12:15:02, Paritosh Kumar wrote:
> On 2015/07/20 11:47:02, philipj wrote:
> > Please restore this TODO, it wasn't fixed.
> 
> Restored. Actually, I removed this after seeing
> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/commit/b1804cab09299a1c5334a6afded382288ee98403
> and status=WontFix on http://crbug.com/366541.

I see. You can remove them again if you mention it in the description, or in a
separate CL, whichever you prefer.

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-07-20 13:40:09]

On 2015/07/20 13:04:53, philipj wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl
> File Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/diff/1/Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.id...
> Source/core/svg/SVGAngle.idl:25: // TODO(philipj): SVGAngle should have
> constructors. crbug.com/366541
> On 2015/07/20 12:15:02, Paritosh Kumar wrote:
> > On 2015/07/20 11:47:02, philipj wrote:
> > > Please restore this TODO, it wasn't fixed.
> > 
> > Restored. Actually, I removed this after seeing
> > https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/commit/b1804cab09299a1c5334a6afded382288ee98403
> > and status=WontFix on http://crbug.com/366541.
> 
> I see. You can remove them again if you mention it in the description, or in a
> separate CL, whichever you prefer.

Thanks,
removing them in this cl only.

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-07-20 13:40:35]

The CQ bit was checked by paritosh.in@samsung.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-20 13:40:38]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1234383003/40001

[philipj_slow, 2015-07-20 13:41:57]

Changed BUG= to BUG=460722. Just BUG= is never useful, so you can remove it if
there really is no suitable bug and it's not worth creating one.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-20 15:02:08]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-20 15:02:08]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-07-20 17:57:28]

The CQ bit was checked by paritosh.in@samsung.com

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-07-20 17:57:28]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from philipj@opera.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1234383003/#ps40001
(title: " ")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-20 17:57:59]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1234383003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-20 18:06:28]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=199176