Quota view in Resources pannel.

Quota view in Resources pannel.

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/23240002/

BUG=281252

[pfeldman, 2013-09-19 17:37:31]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/protocol.json
File Source/devtools/protocol.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/protocol.j...
Source/devtools/protocol.json:200: "id": "Quota",
I'd rather have a structure:

Quota: {
    temporary: number,
    persistent: number,
    ...
}

Usage: {
    temporary: Array<UsageItem>,
    persistent: Array<UsageItem>,
    ...
}

UsageItem {
    id: string enum ("filesystem", "database", "appcache", "indexeddatabase"),
    value: number
}

[aandrey, 2013-09-20 08:31:58]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/front_end/...
File Source/devtools/front_end/QuotaView.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/front_end/...
Source/devtools/front_end/QuotaView.js:66: var columns = [
check error?

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/front_end/...
Source/devtools/front_end/QuotaView.js:99:
PageAgent.queryUsageAndQuota(this.securityOrigin,
this._showUsageAndQuota.bind(this));
fyi. if this is expensive in the backend, you should not call it until you get
the response from the previous command.

just wondering what is the latency to request WebSQL, IndexedDB, file system and
app cache all together?

[SeRya, 2013-09-27 13:31:01]

Screenshot is available here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3SVkF4M472XUVRTWlhfV1p3LTg/edit?usp=sharing

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/front_end/...
File Source/devtools/front_end/QuotaView.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/front_end/...
Source/devtools/front_end/QuotaView.js:66: var columns = [
On 2013/09/20 08:31:59, aandrey wrote:
> check error?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/front_end/...
Source/devtools/front_end/QuotaView.js:99:
PageAgent.queryUsageAndQuota(this.securityOrigin,
this._showUsageAndQuota.bind(this));
On 2013/09/20 08:31:59, aandrey wrote:
> fyi. if this is expensive in the backend, you should not call it until you get
> the response from the previous command.
> 
> just wondering what is the latency to request WebSQL, IndexedDB, file system
and
> app cache all together?

It usually needs to find a proper ClientUsageTracker which has the value so it's
inexpensive.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/protocol.json
File Source/devtools/protocol.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23264011/diff/4001/Source/devtools/protocol.j...
Source/devtools/protocol.json:200: "id": "Quota",
On 2013/09/19 17:37:32, pfeldman wrote:
> I'd rather have a structure:
> 
> Quota: {
>     temporary: number,
>     persistent: number,
>     ...
> }
> 
> Usage: {
>     temporary: Array<UsageItem>,
>     persistent: Array<UsageItem>,
>     ...
> }
> 
> UsageItem {
>     id: string enum ("filesystem", "database", "appcache", "indexeddatabase"),
>     value: number
> }

Done.

[pfeldman, 2013-10-17 17:22:45]

Is there a screenshot?

[SeRya, 2013-10-21 10:55:10]

On 2013/10/17 17:22:45, pfeldman wrote:
> Is there a screenshot?

Sure.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3SVkF4M472XUVRTWlhfV1p3LTg/edit?usp=sharing

[vsevik, 2013-10-25 06:51:30]

On 2013/10/21 10:55:10, SeRya wrote:
> On 2013/10/17 17:22:45, pfeldman wrote:
> > Is there a screenshot?
> 
> Sure.
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3SVkF4M472XUVRTWlhfV1p3LTg/edit?usp=sharing

Could you please delete the patch set and re-upload it. The current version is
broken.

[SeRya, 2013-10-25 10:56:18]

New patchset uploaded. Updated screenshot is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3SVkF4M472XRXQ0WmR6bHh6UHc/edit?usp=sharing

[aandrey, 2014-07-02 11:11:45]

Do we want to continue this work?

[pfeldman, 2014-07-02 18:30:19]

It is lower priority than other things we are busy with. But it addresses one of
the important mobile scenarios, so we might want to resume it at some point. We
can remove ourselves from reviewers list for now.

[lushnikov, 2014-07-03 12:35:29]

On 2014/07/02 18:30:19, pfeldman wrote:
> It is lower priority than other things we are busy with. But it addresses one
of
> the important mobile scenarios, so we might want to resume it at some point.
We
> can remove ourselves from reviewers list for now.

FYI: no need to change blink-fs.js file