3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-14 22:46:54 UTC)
#10
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
timvolodine
Description was changed from ========== [WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing Based on the original ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-15 18:11:49 UTC)
#11
Description was changed from
==========
[WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing
Based on the original sgurun's patch
https://codereview.chromium.org/2615393002/
This CL implements the basics for Safebrowsing for Webview
- A basic UI manager that decides (using a simple policy) whether or not show an
interstitial
- A mechanism to call back to GMSCore for checking
patch from issue 2615393002 at patchset 160001
(http://crrev.com/2615393002#ps160001)
BUG=
==========
to
==========
[WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing
Based on the original sgurun's patch
https://codereview.chromium.org/2615393002/
This CL implements the basics for Safebrowsing for Webview
- A basic UI manager that decides (using a simple policy) whether or not show an
interstitial
- A mechanism to call back to GMSCore for checking
In addition to the base patch the following changed have been done:
- rebases, fixed DEPS, added todos,
- added visibility check in canShowInterstitial() and comment/todo
- added switch and functionaly to enable/disable
- added sIntance lock to PlatformServiceBridge.java to avoid crashes (due to
https://codereview.chromium.org/2611883002)
patch from issue 2615393002 at patchset 160001
(http://crrev.com/2615393002#ps160001)
BUG=
==========
timvolodine
Description was changed from ========== [WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing Based on the original ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-15 18:13:13 UTC)
#12
Description was changed from
==========
[WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing
Based on the original sgurun's patch
https://codereview.chromium.org/2615393002/
This CL implements the basics for Safebrowsing for Webview
- A basic UI manager that decides (using a simple policy) whether or not show an
interstitial
- A mechanism to call back to GMSCore for checking
In addition to the base patch the following changed have been done:
- rebases, fixed DEPS, added todos,
- added visibility check in canShowInterstitial() and comment/todo
- added switch and functionaly to enable/disable
- added sIntance lock to PlatformServiceBridge.java to avoid crashes (due to
https://codereview.chromium.org/2611883002)
patch from issue 2615393002 at patchset 160001
(http://crrev.com/2615393002#ps160001)
BUG=
==========
to
==========
[WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing
Based on the original sgurun's patch
https://codereview.chromium.org/2615393002/
This CL implements the basics for Safebrowsing for Webview
- A basic UI manager that decides (using a simple policy) whether or not show an
interstitial
- A mechanism to call back to GMSCore for checking
In addition to the base patch the following changed have been done:
- added switch and functionality to enable/disable
- replaced UI thread check in PlatformServiceBridge.java with a lock to avoid
crashes (due to https://codereview.chromium.org/2611883002)
- rebases, fixed DEPS, added todos,
- added visibility check in canShowInterstitial() and comment/todo
patch from issue 2615393002 at patchset 160001
(http://crrev.com/2615393002#ps160001)
BUG=
==========
timvolodine
The CQ bit was checked by timvolodine@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-15 18:29:04 UTC)
#13
Selim thanks for the comments! https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc File android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc#newcode279 android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc:279: if (safebrowsing_support_enabled) { On ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-16 18:58:58 UTC)
#21
Selim thanks for the comments!
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
File
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc:279:
if (safebrowsing_support_enabled) {
On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> you are already checking for this in AwBrowserContext. no need to repeat.
> remove.
Without this guard we'll add a safebrowsing throttle (with all the related
classes) everytime even if the functionality is completely disabled. This would
lead to unnecessary overhead for each loaded resource on all devices where it is
not enabled. Also some unnecessary UMA logging which in addition would be skewed
by this (e.g. UMA_STATUS_UNSUPPORTED, some SB2.RemoteCall.*, ...)
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc:287:
LOG(WARNING) << "Failed creating safebrowsing throttle";
On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> do a DLOG as this is expected fail mode for AOSP devices.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
File
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.h
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.h:90:
bool safebrowsing_support_enabled;
On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> private variables need _
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/java/s...
File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/java/s...
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java:97:
Log.w(TAG, "Could not find SafeBrowsingApiHandler");
On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> no need to log here as we are already logging for the resourcethrottle
creating
> failure in AwResourceDispatcherHostDelegate which means the device is AOSP.
> remove.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/java/s...
File
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/java/s...
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java:30:
synchronized (INSTANCE_LOCK) {
On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> rather than adding a lock, the easiest thing to do is changing internal
> safebrowsingapihandler code to do:
>
>
> PlatformServiceBridge.getInstance(context).tryEnableGms();
>
>
> in its constructor, which is a very lightweight thing
Did you mean moving the above call to the AwSafeBrowsingApiHandler constructor?
That wouldn't help much because it's instantiated on a non UI thread as well.
timvolodine
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc File android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc#newcode279 android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc:279: if (safebrowsing_support_enabled) { On 2017/01/16 18:58:57, timvolodine wrote: > ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-16 19:01:56 UTC)
#22
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
File
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc:279:
if (safebrowsing_support_enabled) {
On 2017/01/16 18:58:57, timvolodine wrote:
> On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> > you are already checking for this in AwBrowserContext. no need to repeat.
> > remove.
>
> Without this guard we'll add a safebrowsing throttle (with all the related
> classes) everytime even if the functionality is completely disabled. This
would
> lead to unnecessary overhead for each loaded resource on all devices where it
is
> not enabled. Also some unnecessary UMA logging which in addition would be
skewed
> by this (e.g. UMA_STATUS_UNSUPPORTED, some SB2.RemoteCall.*, ...)
Oh hold on, you probably meant throttle should be null in that case because of
DatabaseManager::IsSupported should be false when safebrowsing is disabled.. hmm
will rework the code a bit for that to work ;)
timvolodine
The CQ bit was checked by timvolodine@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-16 21:36:42 UTC)
#23
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-16 21:38:34 UTC)
#25
On 2017/01/16 19:01:56, timvolodine wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
> File
> android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc
> (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
>
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc:279:
> if (safebrowsing_support_enabled) {
> On 2017/01/16 18:58:57, timvolodine wrote:
> > On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> > > you are already checking for this in AwBrowserContext. no need to repeat.
> > > remove.
> >
> > Without this guard we'll add a safebrowsing throttle (with all the related
> > classes) everytime even if the functionality is completely disabled. This
> would
> > lead to unnecessary overhead for each loaded resource on all devices where
it
> is
> > not enabled. Also some unnecessary UMA logging which in addition would be
> skewed
> > by this (e.g. UMA_STATUS_UNSUPPORTED, some SB2.RemoteCall.*, ...)
>
> Oh hold on, you probably meant throttle should be null in that case because of
> DatabaseManager::IsSupported should be false when safebrowsing is disabled..
hmm
> will rework the code a bit for that to work ;)
ok done, refactored the switch out of resource_dispatcher, added in
aw_main_delegate (still need the native switch), think that's cleaner. PTAL.
commit-bot: I haz the power
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-16 22:30:34 UTC)
#26
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-16 22:42:00 UTC)
#28
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
File
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/140001/android_webview/browse...
android_webview/browser/renderer_host/aw_resource_dispatcher_host_delegate.cc:287:
LOG(WARNING) << "Failed creating safebrowsing throttle";
On 2017/01/16 18:58:57, timvolodine wrote:
> On 2017/01/16 15:11:19, sgurun wrote:
> > do a DLOG as this is expected fail mode for AOSP devices.
>
> Done.
Actually don't think this will be the fail mode on AOSP, because the internal
handler construction is on demand. Might be possible to remove the logging
completely here.
Tobias Sargeant
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java#newcode29 android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java:29: public static PlatformServiceBridge getInstance(Context appContext) { It seems strange ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-16 23:18:47 UTC)
#29
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
File
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java:29:
public static PlatformServiceBridge getInstance(Context appContext) {
It seems strange that this method takes an application context. Doubly odd is
that as far as I can tell the downstream class does nothing with it in its
constructor. If this method didn't take an argument, then you could use the
initialize-on-demand pattern to avoid the lock.
If the app context is definitely needed, it seems like it would be cleaner to
have a createInstance(Context) and a getInstance().
timvolodine
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java#newcode29 android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java:29: public static PlatformServiceBridge getInstance(Context appContext) { On 2017/01/16 23:18:47, ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 13:07:45 UTC)
#30
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
File
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java:29:
public static PlatformServiceBridge getInstance(Context appContext) {
On 2017/01/16 23:18:47, Tobias Sargeant wrote:
> It seems strange that this method takes an application context. Doubly odd is
> that as far as I can tell the downstream class does nothing with it in its
> constructor. If this method didn't take an argument, then you could use the
> initialize-on-demand pattern to avoid the lock.
>
> If the app context is definitely needed, it seems like it would be cleaner to
> have a createInstance(Context) and a getInstance().
yeah it may be possible to avoid the lock with some refactoring I've filed a
crbug and added a comment. Seems like this would be something for a follow-up
though, out of scope of this cl.
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 13:14:19 UTC)
#31
On 2017/01/17 13:07:45, timvolodine wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
> File
>
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java
> (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
>
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java:29:
> public static PlatformServiceBridge getInstance(Context appContext) {
> On 2017/01/16 23:18:47, Tobias Sargeant wrote:
> > It seems strange that this method takes an application context. Doubly odd
is
> > that as far as I can tell the downstream class does nothing with it in its
> > constructor. If this method didn't take an argument, then you could use the
> > initialize-on-demand pattern to avoid the lock.
> >
> > If the app context is definitely needed, it seems like it would be cleaner
to
> > have a createInstance(Context) and a getInstance().
>
> yeah it may be possible to avoid the lock with some refactoring I've filed a
> crbug and added a comment. Seems like this would be something for a follow-up
> though, out of scope of this cl.
Ok. LGTM.
sgurun-gerrit only
On 2017/01/17 13:14:19, Tobias Sargeant wrote: > On 2017/01/17 13:07:45, timvolodine wrote: > > > ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 18:13:53 UTC)
#32
On 2017/01/17 13:14:19, Tobias Sargeant wrote:
> On 2017/01/17 13:07:45, timvolodine wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
> > File
> >
>
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java
> > (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/200001/android_webview/java/s...
> >
>
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/PlatformServiceBridge.java:29:
> > public static PlatformServiceBridge getInstance(Context appContext) {
> > On 2017/01/16 23:18:47, Tobias Sargeant wrote:
> > > It seems strange that this method takes an application context. Doubly odd
> is
> > > that as far as I can tell the downstream class does nothing with it in its
> > > constructor. If this method didn't take an argument, then you could use
the
> > > initialize-on-demand pattern to avoid the lock.
> > >
> > > If the app context is definitely needed, it seems like it would be cleaner
> to
> > > have a createInstance(Context) and a getInstance().
> >
> > yeah it may be possible to avoid the lock with some refactoring I've filed a
> > crbug and added a comment. Seems like this would be something for a
follow-up
> > though, out of scope of this cl.
>
> Ok. LGTM.
lgtm
sgurun-gerrit only
The CQ bit was checked by sgurun@chromium.org
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 18:14:02 UTC)
#33
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_presubmit/builds/343303)
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 18:21:27 UTC)
#36
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java#newcode86 android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java:86: private void initSafeBrowsingApiHandler() { Wouldn't you rather use PlatformServiceBridge ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 21:45:01 UTC)
#38
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/s...
File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/s...
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java:86:
private void initSafeBrowsingApiHandler() {
Wouldn't you rather use PlatformServiceBridge for this? The idea with
PlatformServiceBridge was that it'd be a generic way to connect to closed GMS
code, which would keep the reflection ugliness isolated. (That's why we picked
such a vague name.) This logic seems redundant.
Jialiu need LGTM for deps. https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java#newcode86 android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java:86: private void initSafeBrowsingApiHandler() { ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 22:59:50 UTC)
#40
Jialiu need LGTM for deps.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/s...
File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/s...
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java:86:
private void initSafeBrowsingApiHandler() {
On 2017/01/17 21:45:01, paulmiller wrote:
> Wouldn't you rather use PlatformServiceBridge for this? The idea with
> PlatformServiceBridge was that it'd be a generic way to connect to closed GMS
> code, which would keep the reflection ugliness isolated. (That's why we picked
> such a vague name.) This logic seems redundant.
I think it is not super important, we could do it in a follow up cl if there is
an advantage. Honestly, I don't see an immediate advantage now.
Jialiu Lin
lgtm
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 23:03:08 UTC)
#41
lgtm
sgurun-gerrit only
The CQ bit was checked by sgurun@chromium.org
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 23:04:12 UTC)
#42
CQ is committing da patch. Bot data: {"patchset_id": 240001, "attempt_start_ts": 1484694252325480, "parent_rev": "df66adcb39e831a54a35a795baf7267c9a3925f5", "commit_rev": "49207db970b2bff94d1ca2d0c2b3d5c7979a59c8"}
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 23:13:40 UTC)
#44
CQ is committing da patch.
Bot data: {"patchset_id": 240001, "attempt_start_ts": 1484694252325480,
"parent_rev": "df66adcb39e831a54a35a795baf7267c9a3925f5", "commit_rev":
"49207db970b2bff94d1ca2d0c2b3d5c7979a59c8"}
commit-bot: I haz the power
Description was changed from ========== [WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing Based on the original ...
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 23:14:12 UTC)
#45
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from
==========
[WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing
Based on the original sgurun's patch
https://codereview.chromium.org/2615393002/
This CL implements the basics for Safebrowsing for Webview
- A basic UI manager that decides (using a simple policy) whether or not show an
interstitial
- A mechanism to call back to GMSCore for checking
In addition to the base patch the following changed have been done:
- added switch and functionality to enable/disable
- replaced UI thread check in PlatformServiceBridge.java with a lock to avoid
crashes (due to https://codereview.chromium.org/2611883002)
- rebases, fixed DEPS, added todos,
- added visibility check in canShowInterstitial() and comment/todo
patch from issue 2615393002 at patchset 160001
(http://crrev.com/2615393002#ps160001)
BUG=
==========
to
==========
[WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing
Based on the original sgurun's patch
https://codereview.chromium.org/2615393002/
This CL implements the basics for Safebrowsing for Webview
- A basic UI manager that decides (using a simple policy) whether or not show an
interstitial
- A mechanism to call back to GMSCore for checking
In addition to the base patch the following changed have been done:
- added switch and functionality to enable/disable
- replaced UI thread check in PlatformServiceBridge.java with a lock to avoid
crashes (due to https://codereview.chromium.org/2611883002)
- rebases, fixed DEPS, added todos,
- added visibility check in canShowInterstitial() and comment/todo
patch from issue 2615393002 at patchset 160001
(http://crrev.com/2615393002#ps160001)
BUG=
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#444177}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/49207db970b2bff94d1ca2d0c2b3...
==========
commit-bot: I haz the power
Committed patchset #13 (id:240001) as https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/49207db970b2bff94d1ca2d0c2b3d5c7979a59c8
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-17 23:14:13 UTC)
#46
3 years, 11 months ago
(2017-01-18 00:58:03 UTC)
#47
Message was sent while issue was closed.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/s...
File android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java
(right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/2635693002/diff/240001/android_webview/java/s...
android_webview/java/src/org/chromium/android_webview/AwBrowserContext.java:86:
private void initSafeBrowsingApiHandler() {
On 2017/01/17 22:59:50, sgurun wrote:
> On 2017/01/17 21:45:01, paulmiller wrote:
> > Wouldn't you rather use PlatformServiceBridge for this? The idea with
> > PlatformServiceBridge was that it'd be a generic way to connect to closed
GMS
> > code, which would keep the reflection ugliness isolated. (That's why we
picked
> > such a vague name.) This logic seems redundant.
>
> I think it is not super important, we could do it in a follow up cl if there
is
> an advantage. Honestly, I don't see an immediate advantage now.
Come to think of it, PlatformServiceBridge doesn't just encapsulate the
reflection; it also encapsulates the call which allows WebView to use GMS in the
first place (see the downstream constructor). Remember, that's why we decided to
move the call from tryEnableGms to the constructor; so upstream code could just
use GMS through PlatformServiceBridge and not worry about the complexities of
the WebView/GMS interaction. I'll file a bug.
Issue 2635693002: [WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing
(Closed)
Created 3 years, 11 months ago by timvolodine
Modified 3 years, 11 months ago
Reviewers: sgurun-gerrit only, Tobias Sargeant, paulmiller, Jialiu Lin
Base URL:
Comments: 22
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2635693002:
[WebView] initial webview-side implementation of safebrowsing (Closed)
