|
|
Created:
4 years, 5 months ago by hayato Modified:
4 years, 5 months ago Reviewers:
Yoav Weiss CC:
blink-reviews, blink-reviews-html_chromium.org, chromium-reviews, dglazkov+blink, gavinp+prerender_chromium.org Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master Project:
chromium Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionRemove unused code from HTMLLinkElement
This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002
BUG=357586, 630141
Committed: https://crrev.com/10f38919e18ed8fa5b4fa96834a024cfdd9a0667
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407739}
Patch Set 1 #
Created: 4 years, 5 months ago
Dependent Patchsets: Messages
Total messages: 14 (7 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by hayato@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Description was changed from ========== Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement BUG= ========== to ========== Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002 BUG=357586,630141 ==========
hayato@chromium.org changed reviewers: + yoav@yoav.ws
yoav@, could you check whether we can remove this? My concern is whether we can remove "frame->document()" or not from the condition because it might change the behavior.
On 2016/07/26 07:43:09, hayato wrote: > yoav@, could you check whether we can remove this? > > My concern is whether we can remove "frame->document()" or not from the > condition because it might change the behavior. Looks like we can definitely remove the styleForDocument() call. My understanding is that the case where frame->document() is null should not happen, since we're in a rel=style case, so loadingFrame() returns m_owner->document().frame(), so the frame should have a document here. Therefore I don't think removing the frame->document() condition entirely would change the behavior significantly. Can you think of a scenario where that is the case?
Thanks. I appreciate that. I can not think of. Now I do not have a concern. :)
On 2016/07/26 08:29:16, hayato wrote: > Thanks. I appreciate that. I can not think of. > Now I do not have a concern. :) Awesome. LGTM! Thanks for cleaning up leftovers from my old patches! :D
The CQ bit was unchecked by hayato@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by hayato@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #1 (id:1)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002 BUG=357586,630141 ========== to ========== Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002 BUG=357586,630141 Committed: https://crrev.com/10f38919e18ed8fa5b4fa96834a024cfdd9a0667 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407739} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/10f38919e18ed8fa5b4fa96834a024cfdd9a0667 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407739} |