Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

BUG=557621

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-17 11:02:42]

Description was changed from

==========
Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

BUG=
==========

to

==========
Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

These CL also address comments reported in:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1391583002/

BUG=537138
==========

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-18 03:03:22]

shiva.jm@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ hiroshige@chromium.org, horo@chromium.org, tyoshino@chromium.org,
yhirano@chromium.org

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-18 03:03:22]

pls have a look.

[yhirano, 2015-11-18 04:48:47]

On 2015/11/18 03:03:22, shiva.jm wrote:
> pls have a look.

omit-origin header flag is not related with the original issue.

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-18 06:03:42]

On 2015/11/18 04:48:47, yhirano wrote:
> On 2015/11/18 03:03:22, shiva.jm wrote:
> > pls have a look.
> 
> omit-origin header flag is not related with the original issue.

Yes partially right, actually we had to implement Step2-4 in Request.cpp
(i.e line no.130), so i mentioned it as related to old issue. since i 
added comments.
Also step3-4 is already implemented.

Changes in RequestInit.cpp are from old issue.

So shall we split the changes in RequestInit.cpp to other CL?.
and retain omit-origin-header-flag changes in these CL ?

[yhirano, 2015-11-18 06:38:32]

> actually we had to implement Step2-4 in Request.cpp

I'm not sure why. We have a lot of unimplemented features. If you think
omit-origin header flag should be implemented, a new crbug issue is needed.

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-18 10:21:54]

On 2015/11/18 06:38:32, yhirano wrote:
> > actually we had to implement Step2-4 in Request.cpp
> 
> I'm not sure why. We have a lot of unimplemented features. If you think
> omit-origin header flag should be implemented, a new crbug issue is needed.

Ok then, will report new CR-bug for omit-origin header flag and
move the request init changes to other CL

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-18 10:55:51]

Description was changed from

==========
Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

These CL also address comments reported in:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1391583002/

BUG=537138
==========

to

==========
Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

These CL also address comments reported in:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1391583002/

BUG=557621
==========

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-18 14:33:03]

Description was changed from

==========
Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

These CL also address comments reported in:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1391583002/

BUG=557621
==========

to

==========
Add requests omit-origin-header-flag

BUG=557621
==========

[shiva.jm, 2015-11-18 14:33:26]

updated the patch, pls have a look.

[yhirano, 2015-11-19 11:15:05]

On 2015/11/18 14:33:26, shiva.jm wrote:
> updated the patch, pls have a look.

Given that Chrome is not behaving in a spec-conformant way now, I'm not sure if
this feature is needed right now. Let's discuss at the crbug issue.

[hiroshige, 2015-11-19 11:17:41]

1. m_omitOriginHeaderFlag is always false in this CL.
Should we implement code path to set it to true?
(But when m_omitOriginHeaderFlag can be true?
I found "Navigating across documents" or so in 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/browsers.html sets the
omit-Origin-header flag, but I suspect this kind of functionality is not using
modules/fetch and thus m_omitOriginHeaderFlag cannot be true due to these).

2. (If the answer to 1. is yes) even if m_omitOriginHeaderFlag is true, the
Origin header is not omitted, so we have to implement the logic.
(This will depend on e.g.
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=557621#c2)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1448333002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/fetch/script-tests/request.js
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1448333002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/fetch/script-tests/request.js:650: },
'Request referrer test, if inits members are present');
This seems already tested?
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/WebKit...

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-11-24 08:26:36]

As hiroshige said, we need to review call sites carefully to set the flag
appropriately.

I posted my thoughts on the bug. See
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=557621#c4.

[shiva.jm, 2015-12-10 12:05:16]

On 2015/11/24 08:26:36, tyoshino wrote:
> As hiroshige said, we need to review call sites carefully to set the flag
> appropriately.
> 
> I posted my thoughts on the bug. See
> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=557621#c4.

@tyoshino, issue created at https://github.com/whatwg/xhr/issues/31,
is still open, do we need to wait for the conformation to make changes ?

[hiroshige, 2015-12-15 08:38:28]

On 2015/12/10 12:05:16, shiva.jm wrote:
> On 2015/11/24 08:26:36, tyoshino wrote:
> > As hiroshige said, we need to review call sites carefully to set the flag
> > appropriately.
> > 
> > I posted my thoughts on the bug. See
> > https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=557621#c4.
> 
> @tyoshino, issue created at https://github.com/whatwg/xhr/issues/31,
> is still open, do we need to wait for the conformation to make changes ?

I discussed with @tyoshino and it seems yes, we need to wait for spec
discussions if we want to make behavior changes.
Updated the current status at
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=557621#c6.

[yhirano, 2016-12-16 02:05:13]

yhirano@chromium.org changed reviewers:
- yhirano@chromium.org

[yhirano, 2016-12-16 02:05:13]

(removing myself from the reviewers list)