Rename traverseFrames to pierce and traverse shadow dom too.

Rename traverseFrames to pierce and traverse shadow dom too.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953
Committed: https://crrev.com/3254ebbf111f352925cd736c8f33cde529f75a90
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#432168}

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-10 18:05:05]

Description was changed from

==========
Get traverseFrames to traverse shadow dom as well as iframes.

We'd like to get the lot in one go :)

BUG=546953
==========

to

==========
Get traverseFrames to traverse shadow dom as well as iframes.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953
==========

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-10 18:05:05]

alexclarke@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dgozman@chromium.org, pfeldman@chromium.org, skyostil@chromium.org

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-11 10:34:26]

The CQ bit was checked by alexclarke@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-11 10:34:36]

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, 2016-11-11 11:55:28]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-11 11:55:29]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Sami, 2016-11-11 15:29:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json:2125: { "name":
"traverseFrames", "type": "boolean", "optional": true, "description": "Whether
or not iframes and shadow roots should be traversed when returning the subtree
(default is false).", "experimental": true }
I'll leave this up to you but it feels a little weird to have this flag control
both settings. Is there a reason we shouldn't add a traverseShadowRoots flag?

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-14 16:25:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json:2125: { "name":
"traverseFrames", "type": "boolean", "optional": true, "description": "Whether
or not iframes and shadow roots should be traversed when returning the subtree
(default is false).", "experimental": true }
On 2016/11/11 15:29:42, Sami wrote:
> I'll leave this up to you but it feels a little weird to have this flag
control
> both settings. Is there a reason we shouldn't add a traverseShadowRoots flag?

The use case I had in mind doesn't need it but we could do.  Pavel / Dmitry do
you have a preference?

[pfeldman, 2016-11-14 18:35:06]

lgtm % recommendation

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json:2125: { "name":
"traverseFrames", "type": "boolean", "optional": true, "description": "Whether
or not iframes and shadow roots should be traversed when returning the subtree
(default is false).", "experimental": true }
No strong preference. We can call it in an intentionally ambiguous manner such
as "pierce" to go through shadow, templates, iframes and everything.

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 10:31:58]

On 2016/11/14 18:35:06, pfeldman wrote:
> lgtm % recommendation
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> third_party/WebKit/Source/core/inspector/browser_protocol.json:2125: { "name":
> "traverseFrames", "type": "boolean", "optional": true, "description": "Whether
> or not iframes and shadow roots should be traversed when returning the subtree
> (default is false).", "experimental": true }
> No strong preference. We can call it in an intentionally ambiguous manner such
> as "pierce" to go through shadow, templates, iframes and everything.

OK lets rename it to pierce. I suspect down the line we're probably going to
want it to go through templates as well (lets do that in a follow on patch).

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 10:45:49]

The CQ bit was checked by alexclarke@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-15 10:46:01]

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

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 10:59:04]

alexclarke@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ altimin@chromium.org

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 10:59:04]

+altimin for headless/

[altimin, 2016-11-15 11:06:15]

lgtm for headless/

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 11:06:27]

The CQ bit was unchecked by alexclarke@chromium.org

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 11:06:30]

The CQ bit was checked by alexclarke@chromium.org

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 11:06:30]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
pfeldman@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2495623002/#ps20001
(title: "Rename traverseFrames to pierce.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-15 11:06:46]

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

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 11:07:53]

Description was changed from

==========
Get traverseFrames to traverse shadow dom as well as iframes.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953
==========

to

==========
Get traverseFrames to traverse shadow dom as well as iframes.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

To avoid confusion we rename 'traverseFrames' to 'pierce'.

BUG=546953
==========

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2016-11-15 11:08:26]

Description was changed from

==========
Get traverseFrames to traverse shadow dom as well as iframes.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

To avoid confusion we rename 'traverseFrames' to 'pierce'.

BUG=546953
==========

to

==========
Rename traverseFrames to pierce and traverse shadow dom too.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-15 13:13:25]

Description was changed from

==========
Rename traverseFrames to pierce and traverse shadow dom too.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953
==========

to

==========
Rename traverseFrames to pierce and traverse shadow dom too.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-15 13:13:26]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-15 13:15:39]

Description was changed from

==========
Rename traverseFrames to pierce and traverse shadow dom too.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953
==========

to

==========
Rename traverseFrames to pierce and traverse shadow dom too.

CSS.GetLayoutTreeNodes traverses shadow dom, we'd like DOM.getDocument to
be able to do so too.

BUG=546953

Committed: https://crrev.com/3254ebbf111f352925cd736c8f33cde529f75a90
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#432168}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-15 13:15:40]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/3254ebbf111f352925cd736c8f33cde529f75a90
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#432168}