Add `disposition` to SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

Intent to Ship - https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/ip4dmVNr15Y/discussion

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/ce907c889943d12088f498aff2f2a9cc29420613
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#425438}

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-12 21:45:14]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-12 21:45:51]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-12 23:35:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-12 23:35:06]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-13 05:57:31]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-13 05:57:43]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-13 07:27:15]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-13 07:27:16]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Mike West, 2016-09-14 13:03:01]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h:94: String
m_disposition;
Rather than storing a new copy of a string, perhaps you could simply store the
disposition enum, and reflect a constant string back to JavaScript based on that
enum's value?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPDirectiveList.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPDirectiveList.cpp:82:
ContentSecurityPolicy::DispositionType dispositionType;
If you move to `ContentSecurityPolicyHeaderType`, you can just use
`m_headerType` here.

In hindsight, I'm not sure why we have both `m_headerType` and `m_reportOnly`.
Combining those seems like a reasonable cleanup CL for the future.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h:138: enum
DispositionType {
We already have `ContentSecurityPolicyHeaderType`, I don't think we need this
new enum.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h:259: void
reportViolation(const String& directiveText, DispositionType, const String&
effectiveDirective, const String& consoleMessage, const KURL& blockedURL, const
Vector<String>& reportEndpoints, const String& header, ViolationType,
LocalFrame* = nullptr, RedirectStatus = RedirectStatus::FollowedRedirect, int
contextLine = 0);
Nit: I'd put the disposition next to the ViolationType, but that's little more
than a personal preference.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-16 05:29:05]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-16 05:29:11]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-16 05:36:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h:94: String
m_disposition;
On 2016/09/14 13:03:01, Mike West wrote:
> Rather than storing a new copy of a string, perhaps you could simply store the
> disposition enum, and reflect a constant string back to JavaScript based on
that
> enum's value?

Spent a lot of time on this today:) Please check if the approach is in the right
direction.. Still cannot make IDL not to treat disposition as a string..

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPDirectiveList.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPDirectiveList.cpp:82:
ContentSecurityPolicy::DispositionType dispositionType;
On 2016/09/14 13:03:01, Mike West wrote:
> If you move to `ContentSecurityPolicyHeaderType`, you can just use
> `m_headerType` here.
> 
> In hindsight, I'm not sure why we have both `m_headerType` and `m_reportOnly`.
> Combining those seems like a reasonable cleanup CL for the future.

It is confusing to me. I can refactor in another PR.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h:138: enum
DispositionType {
On 2016/09/14 13:03:01, Mike West wrote:
> We already have `ContentSecurityPolicyHeaderType`, I don't think we need this
> new enum.

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h:259: void
reportViolation(const String& directiveText, DispositionType, const String&
effectiveDirective, const String& consoleMessage, const KURL& blockedURL, const
Vector<String>& reportEndpoints, const String& header, ViolationType,
LocalFrame* = nullptr, RedirectStatus = RedirectStatus::FollowedRedirect, int
contextLine = 0);
On 2016/09/14 13:03:01, Mike West wrote:
> Nit: I'd put the disposition next to the ViolationType, but that's little more
> than a personal preference.

Acknowledged.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-16 05:38:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h:30:
#include "platform/network/ContentSecurityPolicyParsers.h"
I am not sure if I should do this or edit DEPS, please advise.

[Mike West, 2016-09-16 07:30:35]

n

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/EventTypeNames.in (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/EventTypeNames.in:91: enforce
I don't understand why you're adding these? `EventTypeNames` is a list of the
types of events which can be fired (like `securitypolicyviolation`, not a set of
strings to be used with events.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h:30:
#include "platform/network/ContentSecurityPolicyParsers.h"
On 2016/09/16 at 05:38:02, Sergey Shekyan wrote:
> I am not sure if I should do this or edit DEPS, please advise.

This is fine; //Source/core can depend on //Source/platform.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h:52: return
EventTypeNames::report;
As noted above, the `EventTypeNames` bit is simply wrong. `Document::readyState`
is a good example of how we handle this pattern in other places:
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Docum...

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.h:84: if
(initializer.disposition() == "report")
1. We should move this out of the `.h` file. Doesn't have to be in this CL,
though.

2. Hrm. If you're using the terms here too, then it's probably better to define
them as constants in an anonymous namespace in the `.cpp` file.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-16 15:41:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/EventTypeNames.in (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/EventTypeNames.in:91: enforce
On 2016/09/16 07:30:35, Mike West wrote:
> I don't understand why you're adding these? `EventTypeNames` is a list of the
> types of events which can be fired (like `securitypolicyviolation`, not a set
of
> strings to be used with events.

Oh, as I understood it, .in files are like namespaces to store static strings. I
meant to ask you what to call an .in file that would store these strings for
`securitypolicyviolation`, and temporarily added those strings to something that
can be referenced.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-19 05:53:13]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 05:53:20]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 07:02:27]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 07:02:28]

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

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-19 07:07:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.idl
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Sour...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.idl:27: enum
SecurityPolicyViolationEventDisposition {
is this name too long? `PolicyDisposition`, perhaps ? I'll update the spec once
this CL is approved.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-19 07:07:49]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 07:07:56]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 08:11:28]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 08:11:29]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  mac_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_rel_...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-19 20:44:32]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 20:45:02]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 22:50:12]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-19 22:50:13]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-20 00:20:35]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 00:21:17]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 01:58:08]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 01:58:09]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-20 18:13:55]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 18:14:34]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 19:09:59]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 19:10:00]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-20 20:04:26]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 20:04:59]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 21:03:23]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 21:03:24]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_android_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/linux_androi...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-20 23:23:45]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-20 23:24:24]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-21 03:13:36]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-21 03:13:37]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-21 21:35:07]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/fast/events/constructors/security-policy-violation-event-constructor.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/fast/events/constructors/security-policy-violation-event-constructor.html:42:
// Enum members throw on unknown initializer values.
I don't like this, honestly. Should I introduce an unknown state of disposition
for cases like this?

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-28 17:38:09]

On 2016/09/21 21:35:07, Sergey Shekyan wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
> File
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/fast/events/constructors/security-policy-violation-event-constructor.html
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/fast/events/constructors/security-policy-violation-event-constructor.html:42:
> // Enum members throw on unknown initializer values.
> I don't like this, honestly. Should I introduce an unknown state of
disposition
> for cases like this?

ping

[Mike West, 2016-09-29 10:11:48]

mkwst@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ foolip@chromium.org, jochen@chromium.org

[Mike West, 2016-09-29 10:11:50]

LGTM.

Since this is altering the public signature of the event, we'll need an API
owner to hop in and stamp it.

Jochen, Philip: Do we need to send an Intent to Ship, or is this tiny enough to
slip under the radar?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/fast/events/constructors/security-policy-violation-event-constructor.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/fast/events/constructors/security-policy-violation-event-constructor.html:42:
// Enum members throw on unknown initializer values.
On 2016/09/21 at 21:35:07, Sergey Shekyan wrote:
> I don't like this, honestly. Should I introduce an unknown state of
disposition for cases like this?

This is how enums work. *shrug* I think the behavior is fine; we are supremely
unlikely to add dispositions to CSP in the future.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.cpp
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.cpp:54:
m_disposition = ContentSecurityPolicyHeaderTypeEnforce;
Nit: This seems simpler as a ternary if (e.g. `m_disposition =
initializer.disposition() == "report" ? X : Y`)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/events/SecurityPolicyViolationEvent.cpp:70:
DEFINE_STATIC_LOCAL(const String, report, ("report"));
Nit: If you pull these up into an anonymous namespace as `static const char[]
kEnforce`, you can reuse the string on line #51.

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-09-29 12:23:43]

changes to shipped IDL files should come with an intent to ship.

can you send one please, and reference it from the CL description:
http://www.chromium.org/blink#launch-process

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-29 23:52:45]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-29 23:53:16]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-30 00:10:44]

Description was changed from

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolation

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltion with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value s a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value s a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-30 01:45:05]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-30 01:45:06]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-30 04:52:43]

Description was changed from

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value s a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-30 05:42:23]

Description was changed from

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

Intent to Ship -
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/ip4dmVNr15Y/discus...

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-09-30 05:43:49]

On 2016/09/29 12:23:43, jochen (slow) wrote:
> changes to shipped IDL files should come with an intent to ship.
> 
> can you send one please, and reference it from the CL description:
> http://www.chromium.org/blink#launch-process

Addressed comments, sent out Intent to Ship. Not sure if this needs an entry in
feature dashboard, which I cannot create anyway.

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-09-30 10:48:01]

On 2016/09/30 at 05:43:49, shekyan wrote:
> On 2016/09/29 12:23:43, jochen (slow) wrote:
> > changes to shipped IDL files should come with an intent to ship.
> > 
> > can you send one please, and reference it from the CL description:
> > http://www.chromium.org/blink#launch-process
> 
> Addressed comments, sent out Intent to Ship. Not sure if this needs an entry
in feature dashboard, which I cannot create anyway.

I don't think this needs a feature dashboard entry

thx for sending the intent. I'll approve the CL once the third approval is in

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-09-30 15:10:40]

lgtm

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-02 23:05:08]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-02 23:05:09]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from mkwst@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/#ps160001
(title: "Addressed comments")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-02 23:05:16]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-02 23:10:05]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-02 23:10:07]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-07 17:41:42]

On 2016/10/02 23:10:07, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

foolip@, whould you please take a look at this?

[foolip, 2016-10-10 08:22:36]

On 2016/10/07 17:41:42, Sergey Shekyan wrote:
> On 2016/10/02 23:10:07, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > Try jobs failed on following builders:
> >   chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)
> 
> foolip@, whould you please take a look at this?

I can't see what the failure was supposed to have been, jochen's l-g-t-m should
cover anything that I can review. Trying CQ again.

[foolip, 2016-10-10 08:22:43]

The CQ bit was checked by foolip@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-10 08:22:53]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-10 08:25:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-10 08:25:03]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios-device on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-device/builds...)
  ios-simulator on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator/bui...)
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_comp...)

[foolip, 2016-10-10 08:39:49]

Well, now needs rebase.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-11 07:06:10]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-11 07:06:21]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-11 07:28:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-11 07:28:03]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromeos_amd64-generic_chromium_compile_only_ng on
master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromeos_amd64-...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_ozone_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-12 06:10:08]

Patchset #10 (id:180001) has been deleted

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-12 07:01:42]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 07:02:00]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 07:12:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 07:12:03]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios-device on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-device/builds...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-12 19:39:04]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 19:39:25]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 23:37:08]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 23:37:09]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-12 23:39:05]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-12 23:39:05]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from jochen@chromium.org,
mkwst@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2331213002/#ps220001
(title: "Fix a typo in rebased test expectation")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 23:39:35]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 23:49:56]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-12 23:49:58]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-12 23:52:57]

shekyan@gmail.com changed reviewers:
+ thakis@chromium.org

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-12 23:54:00]

On 2016/10/12 23:49:58, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

thakis@, can you please take a look?  
Missing LGTM from an OWNER for these files:
   
android_webview/tools/system_webview_shell/test/data/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt

[Nico, 2016-10-14 15:29:47]

thakis@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ michaelbai@chromium.org
- thakis@chromium.org

[Nico, 2016-10-14 15:29:48]

I'm not an owner in android_webview. Replacing myself with michaelbai, who is.
michaelbai, can you look at
android_webview/tools/system_webview_shell/test/data/webexposed/global-interface-listing-expected.txt
?

[michaelbai, 2016-10-14 17:08:06]

android_webview LGTM

[Sergey Shekyan, 2016-10-14 17:21:48]

The CQ bit was checked by shekyan@gmail.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-14 17:22:08]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-14 19:49:53]

Description was changed from

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

Intent to Ship -
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/ip4dmVNr15Y/discus...

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

Intent to Ship -
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/ip4dmVNr15Y/discus...

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-14 19:49:55]

Committed patchset #11 (id:220001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-14 19:53:56]

Description was changed from

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

Intent to Ship -
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/ip4dmVNr15Y/discus...

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Add `disposition` to  SecurityPolicyViolationEvent

Recently, Content Security Policy specification introduced disposition
of violation [1]. This change extends the SecurityPolicyVioaltionEvent with
`disposition` property, that indicates the disposition of the violated policy.
Property value is a read-only string that corresponds to the policy
disposition [2], and can be either "enforce" or "report".

[1] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#violation-disposition
[2] https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#policy-disposition

Intent to Ship -
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/ip4dmVNr15Y/discus...

BUG=646021
R=mkwst@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/ce907c889943d12088f498aff2f2a9cc29420613
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#425438}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-14 19:53:58]

Patchset 11 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/ce907c889943d12088f498aff2f2a9cc29420613
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#425438}