No pseudo elements in SelectorChecker::Mode QueryingRules.

No pseudo elements in SelectorChecker::Mode QueryingRules.

QueryingRules mode is used by the Selectors APIs and when selecting
distributed nodes from the select attribute of the <content> element in
Shadow DOM V0.

CSSSelector::isCompound called from HTMLContentElement::validateSelect
makes sure we don't pass selectors with pseudo element selectors to the
rule collector.

Here we introduce a check which skips adding a selector to the selector
list in SelectorDataList if it will match a pseudo element. Such
selectors are still valid, and won't throw, but will result in an empty
result. If no selectors are added to SelectorDataList, we just skip the
DOM traversal.

This means we can replace the QueryingRules check in checkPseudoElement
with an assert.

BUG=489481
Committed: https://crrev.com/58d20bd734ac3b61c4548fd3c9d451a9d458f3bc
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#372342}

[rune, 2016-01-20 13:41:09]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-20 13:41:35]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1602833002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1602833002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-20 14:03:30]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-20 14:03:30]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_compile_dbg_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_compile_dbg_32_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[rune, 2016-01-22 13:13:52]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-22 13:14:19]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1602833002/20002
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1602833002/20002

[rune, 2016-01-22 13:49:26]

rune@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ esprehn@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-22 14:29:40]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-22 14:29:41]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[rune, 2016-01-26 10:37:24]

ptal

[rune, 2016-01-29 00:52:02]

ping

[esprehn, 2016-01-29 02:42:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/20002/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/20002/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp:114: continue;
why is it safe not to increment index here? That means we're going to move to
the next selector above, but still look at the previous selector below.

[rune, 2016-01-29 09:53:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/20002/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/20002/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp:114: continue;
On 2016/01/29 02:42:17, esprehn wrote:
> why is it safe not to increment index here? That means we're going to move to
> the next selector above, but still look at the previous selector below.

Ouch, that's not correct. Will fix.

[rune, 2016-01-29 10:57:30]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 10:57:47]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1602833002/70001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1602833002/70001

[rune, 2016-01-29 10:58:44]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/20002/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/20002/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp:114: continue;
On 2016/01/29 09:53:20, rune wrote:
> On 2016/01/29 02:42:17, esprehn wrote:
> > why is it safe not to increment index here? That means we're going to move
to
> > the next selector above, but still look at the previous selector below.
> 
> Ouch, that's not correct. Will fix.

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 11:16:04]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 11:16:05]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_gn_r...)

[rune, 2016-01-29 12:09:35]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 12:09:48]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1602833002/90001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1602833002/90001

[esprehn, 2016-01-29 12:29:56]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/90001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/90001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp:459: if
(!m_selectors.size())
isEmpty() ?

[rune, 2016-01-29 12:33:36]

The CQ bit was unchecked by rune@opera.com

[rune, 2016-01-29 12:43:13]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/90001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/diff/90001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/SelectorQuery.cpp:459: if
(!m_selectors.size())
On 2016/01/29 12:29:56, esprehn wrote:
> isEmpty() ?

Done.

[rune, 2016-01-29 12:43:19]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com

[rune, 2016-01-29 12:43:19]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from esprehn@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1602833002/#ps110001
(title: "Another review issue")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 12:43:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1602833002/110001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1602833002/110001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 14:16:18]

Committed patchset #7 (id:110001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 14:17:15]

Description was changed from

==========
No pseudo elements in SelectorChecker::Mode QueryingRules.

QueryingRules mode is used by the Selectors APIs and when selecting
distributed nodes from the select attribute of the <content> element in
Shadow DOM V0.

CSSSelector::isCompound called from HTMLContentElement::validateSelect
makes sure we don't pass selectors with pseudo element selectors to the
rule collector.

Here we introduce a check which skips adding a selector to the selector
list in SelectorDataList if it will match a pseudo element. Such
selectors are still valid, and won't throw, but will result in an empty
result. If no selectors are added to SelectorDataList, we just skip the
DOM traversal.

This means we can replace the QueryingRules check in checkPseudoElement
with an assert.

BUG=489481
==========

to

==========
No pseudo elements in SelectorChecker::Mode QueryingRules.

QueryingRules mode is used by the Selectors APIs and when selecting
distributed nodes from the select attribute of the <content> element in
Shadow DOM V0.

CSSSelector::isCompound called from HTMLContentElement::validateSelect
makes sure we don't pass selectors with pseudo element selectors to the
rule collector.

Here we introduce a check which skips adding a selector to the selector
list in SelectorDataList if it will match a pseudo element. Such
selectors are still valid, and won't throw, but will result in an empty
result. If no selectors are added to SelectorDataList, we just skip the
DOM traversal.

This means we can replace the QueryingRules check in checkPseudoElement
with an assert.

BUG=489481

Committed: https://crrev.com/58d20bd734ac3b61c4548fd3c9d451a9d458f3bc
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#372342}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-29 14:17:16]

Patchset 7 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/58d20bd734ac3b61c4548fd3c9d451a9d458f3bc
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#372342}