Expose atob() / btoa() to workers

Expose atob() / btoa() to workers

Expose atob() / btoa() to workers as per the latest Web Workers
specification:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/workers.html#WorkerGlobalScope-partial
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/webappapis.html#windowbase64

This behavior is consistent with Firefox and IE10.

BUG=143502
R=arv@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=154578

[haraken, 2013-07-19 07:58:12]

How do other browsers behave?

[do-not-use, 2013-07-19 08:04:34]

On 2013/07/19 07:58:12, haraken wrote:
> How do other browsers behave?

Relevant links for Firefox:
- https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=608170
-
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/Needs_categorization/Funct...
- http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2192654e75c5

[do-not-use, 2013-07-19 08:43:05]

Firefox and IE10 expose these functions to workers. WebKit does not.

[haraken, 2013-07-19 08:49:07]

ok, LGTM.

[do-not-use, 2013-07-19 14:59:14]

arv, is this one OK with you as well?

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2013-07-19 15:18:09]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/19749003/diff/1/LayoutTests/fast/workers/reso...
File LayoutTests/fast/workers/resources/worker-base64.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/19749003/diff/1/LayoutTests/fast/workers/reso...
LayoutTests/fast/workers/resources/worker-base64.js:4: description("Test to that
atob() / btoa() functions are exposed to workers");
Test that

(remove "to")

https://codereview.chromium.org/19749003/diff/1/LayoutTests/fast/workers/work...
File LayoutTests/fast/workers/worker-base64.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/19749003/diff/1/LayoutTests/fast/workers/work...
LayoutTests/fast/workers/worker-base64.html:5: <link rel="help"
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/#apis-available-to-workers">
I like this

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-19 15:46:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ch.dumez@sisa.samsung.com/19749003/13001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-19 16:16:00]

Retried try job too often on win_blink_rel for step(s) webkit_lint,
webkit_python_tests, webkit_tests, webkit_unit_tests, weborigin_unittests,
wtf_unittests
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_blink_...

[do-not-use, 2013-07-19 16:58:50]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r154578 (presubmit successful).

[tkent, 2013-07-21 22:42:57]

Please wait for an approval by a Blink API owner for such change.

[haraken, 2013-07-22 04:44:24]

Sorry about that. I'll be careful about changes to IDL files that can affect
web-exposed behavior.

[do-not-use, 2013-07-22 05:49:34]

On 2013/07/21 22:42:57, tkent wrote:
> Please wait for an approval by a Blink API owner for such change.

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware of it.

Could you please let me know who are the Blink API owners? Do I understand
correctly that they need to review all web-exposed changes?

[do-not-use, 2013-07-22 06:20:27]

On 2013/07/22 05:49:34, Christophe Dumez wrote:
> On 2013/07/21 22:42:57, tkent wrote:
> > Please wait for an approval by a Blink API owner for such change.
> 
> Sorry about that, I wasn't aware of it.
> 
> Could you please let me know who are the Blink API owners? Do I understand
> correctly that they need to review all web-exposed changes?

I found the info, never mind (http://www.chromium.org/blink#TOC-API-Owners),
I'll be more careful next time.

[abarth-chromium, 2013-07-22 17:44:55]

LGTM

This API has as tiny footprint and is part of a well-established standard.