Doc.write intervention warning and error messages fixed for clarity.

Making the warning message more clear and adding an error message when the script actually gets blocked and a warning message if the script is not blocked due to cache hit.

BUG=658983
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#447018}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/13905c2317d62f3f657e7463aa58c093567dd1cc

[shivanisha, 2017-01-18 21:05:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 21:06:10]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-18 21:06:40]

shivanisha@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bmcquade@chromium.org, japhet@chromium.org

[shivanisha, 2017-01-18 21:07:32]

PTAL, Thanks!

Trying to land it today for branch cut.

[Bryan McQuade, 2017-01-18 21:13:29]

LGTM, thanks!

[Nate Chapin, 2017-01-18 22:15:03]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 22:28:26]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-18 22:28:27]

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_...)

[Bryan McQuade, 2017-01-18 23:47:04]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "for more
details. If the script is indeed blocked, you should see an "
thinking about this more i'm a little concerned that devs might interpret this
last sentence as "if i don't see the subsequent error, my page isn't affected by
this issue" and they won't fix their page, so I'm inclined to omit this last "If
the script is indeed blocked..." text. We can make it clear in the linked
documentation that this message is a warning and only if you see the additional
'script was blocked' message was there an actual issue.

Given this, can we remove this last sentence?

[shivanisha, 2017-01-18 23:59:39]

Retrying the failed bots. If not successful, will try for a merge after branch
cut.

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 16:14:55]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 16:15:17]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 16:16:45]

Patchset #2 (id:20001) has been deleted

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 16:17:26]

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...)
  ios-device-xcode-clang on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-device-xcode-...)
  ios-simulator on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator/bui...)
  ios-simulator-xcode-clang on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator-xco...)

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 16:19:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 16:19:23]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 16:19:47]

Description was changed from

==========
Making the warning message more clear and adding an error message when the
script actually gets blocked and a warning message if the script is not blocked
due to cache hit.
==========

to

==========
Making the warning message more clear and adding an error message when the
script actually gets blocked and a warning message if the script is not blocked
due to cache hit.

BUG=658983
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 16:21:31]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 16:21:32]

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...)
  ios-device-xcode-clang on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-device-xcode-...)
  ios-simulator on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator/bui...)
  ios-simulator-xcode-clang on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-simulator-xco...)

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 16:36:15]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 16:36:31]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 16:37:10]

Patchset #2 (id:40001) has been deleted

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 16:49:49]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 16:50:13]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 17:48:20]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 17:48:33]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-19 18:04:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "for more
details. If the script is indeed blocked, you should see an "
On 2017/01/18 at 23:47:04, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> thinking about this more i'm a little concerned that devs might interpret this
last sentence as "if i don't see the subsequent error, my page isn't affected by
this issue" and they won't fix their page, so I'm inclined to omit this last "If
the script is indeed blocked..." text. We can make it clear in the linked
documentation that this message is a warning and only if you see the additional
'script was blocked' message was there an actual issue.
> 
> Given this, can we remove this last sentence?

I hear your concern. Omitting the last sentence might still leave users unsure
whether it actually was blocked or not, in case they do not read the link very
carefully. How about something like this:

"A Parser-blocking, cross site (i.e. different eTLD+1) script
http://ajax.cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/nexp/dok3v=f2befc48d1/cloudflare.min.js, is
invoked via document.write. This MAY be blocked by the browser in this or a
future page load due to poor network connectivity. If blocked in this page load,
it will be confirmed in a subsequent ERROR message. See
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104 for more details."

[Bryan McQuade, 2017-01-19 18:08:04]

That sounds good, thanks! Only suggestion would be to drop 'ERROR' as I am
not sure users will know what that means - just 'subsequent message' seems
sufficient here. Or maybe 'subsequent console message'.

Thanks!

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:04 PM <shivanisha@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp
> (right):
>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "for
> more details. If the script is indeed blocked, you should see an "
> On 2017/01/18 at 23:47:04, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> > thinking about this more i'm a little concerned that devs might
> interpret this last sentence as "if i don't see the subsequent error, my
> page isn't affected by this issue" and they won't fix their page, so I'm
> inclined to omit this last "If the script is indeed blocked..." text. We
> can make it clear in the linked documentation that this message is a
> warning and only if you see the additional 'script was blocked' message
> was there an actual issue.
> >
> > Given this, can we remove this last sentence?
>
> I hear your concern. Omitting the last sentence might still leave users
> unsure whether it actually was blocked or not, in case they do not read
> the link very carefully. How about something like this:
>
> "A Parser-blocking, cross site (i.e. different eTLD+1) script
> http://ajax.cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/nexp/dok3v=f2befc48d1/cloudflare.min.js
> ,
> is invoked via document.write. This MAY be blocked by the browser in
> this or a future page load due to poor network connectivity. If blocked
> in this page load, it will be confirmed in a subsequent ERROR message.
> See https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104 for more
> details."
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Bryan McQuade, 2017-01-19 18:08:04]

That sounds good, thanks! Only suggestion would be to drop 'ERROR' as I am
not sure users will know what that means - just 'subsequent message' seems
sufficient here. Or maybe 'subsequent console message'.

Thanks!

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:04 PM <shivanisha@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp
> (right):
>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "for
> more details. If the script is indeed blocked, you should see an "
> On 2017/01/18 at 23:47:04, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> > thinking about this more i'm a little concerned that devs might
> interpret this last sentence as "if i don't see the subsequent error, my
> page isn't affected by this issue" and they won't fix their page, so I'm
> inclined to omit this last "If the script is indeed blocked..." text. We
> can make it clear in the linked documentation that this message is a
> warning and only if you see the additional 'script was blocked' message
> was there an actual issue.
> >
> > Given this, can we remove this last sentence?
>
> I hear your concern. Omitting the last sentence might still leave users
> unsure whether it actually was blocked or not, in case they do not read
> the link very carefully. How about something like this:
>
> "A Parser-blocking, cross site (i.e. different eTLD+1) script
> http://ajax.cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/nexp/dok3v=f2befc48d1/cloudflare.min.js
> ,
> is invoked via document.write. This MAY be blocked by the browser in
> this or a future page load due to poor network connectivity. If blocked
> in this page load, it will be confirmed in a subsequent ERROR message.
> See https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104 for more
> details."
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Blink
Reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to blink-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 19:21:31]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 19:21:32]

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_...)

[shivanisha, 2017-01-24 16:15:12]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-24 16:15:26]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-24 16:16:09]

On 2017/01/19 at 18:08:04, bmcquade wrote:
> That sounds good, thanks! Only suggestion would be to drop 'ERROR' as I am
> not sure users will know what that means - just 'subsequent message' seems
> sufficient here. Or maybe 'subsequent console message'.
> 
> Thanks!

Done. Thanks!

> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:04 PM <shivanisha@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp
> > (right):
> >
> >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "for
> > more details. If the script is indeed blocked, you should see an "
> > On 2017/01/18 at 23:47:04, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> > > thinking about this more i'm a little concerned that devs might
> > interpret this last sentence as "if i don't see the subsequent error, my
> > page isn't affected by this issue" and they won't fix their page, so I'm
> > inclined to omit this last "If the script is indeed blocked..." text. We
> > can make it clear in the linked documentation that this message is a
> > warning and only if you see the additional 'script was blocked' message
> > was there an actual issue.
> > >
> > > Given this, can we remove this last sentence?
> >
> > I hear your concern. Omitting the last sentence might still leave users
> > unsure whether it actually was blocked or not, in case they do not read
> > the link very carefully. How about something like this:
> >
> > "A Parser-blocking, cross site (i.e. different eTLD+1) script
> > http://ajax.cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/nexp/dok3v=f2befc48d1/cloudflare.min.js
> > ,
> > is invoked via document.write. This MAY be blocked by the browser in
> > this or a future page load due to poor network connectivity. If blocked
> > in this page load, it will be confirmed in a subsequent ERROR message.
> > See https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104 for more
> > details."
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/
> >
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Blink Reviews" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to blink-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
>

[shivanisha, 2017-01-24 16:16:35]

The CQ bit was unchecked by shivanisha@chromium.org

[Bryan McQuade, 2017-01-24 16:39:14]

On 2017/01/24 at 16:16:09, shivanisha wrote:
> On 2017/01/19 at 18:08:04, bmcquade wrote:
> > That sounds good, thanks! Only suggestion would be to drop 'ERROR' as I am
> > not sure users will know what that means - just 'subsequent message' seems
> > sufficient here. Or maybe 'subsequent console message'.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> Done. Thanks!
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:04 PM <shivanisha@chromium.org> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > > File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp
> > > (right):
> > >
> > >
> > >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > > third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "for
> > > more details. If the script is indeed blocked, you should see an "
> > > On 2017/01/18 at 23:47:04, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> > > > thinking about this more i'm a little concerned that devs might
> > > interpret this last sentence as "if i don't see the subsequent error, my
> > > page isn't affected by this issue" and they won't fix their page, so I'm
> > > inclined to omit this last "If the script is indeed blocked..." text. We
> > > can make it clear in the linked documentation that this message is a
> > > warning and only if you see the additional 'script was blocked' message
> > > was there an actual issue.
> > > >
> > > > Given this, can we remove this last sentence?
> > >
> > > I hear your concern. Omitting the last sentence might still leave users
> > > unsure whether it actually was blocked or not, in case they do not read
> > > the link very carefully. How about something like this:
> > >
> > > "A Parser-blocking, cross site (i.e. different eTLD+1) script
> > > http://ajax.cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/nexp/dok3v=f2befc48d1/cloudflare.min.js
> > > ,
> > > is invoked via document.write. This MAY be blocked by the browser in
> > > this or a future page load due to poor network connectivity. If blocked
> > > in this page load, it will be confirmed in a subsequent ERROR message.
> > > See https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104 for more
> > > details."
> > >
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/
> > >
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Blink Reviews" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to blink-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
> >

Thanks! 2 small changes, otherwise LGTM.

[Bryan McQuade, 2017-01-24 16:45:26]

Sorry, my earlier comments did not go through. Hope they come through this time.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp:272:
"connectivity. See "
do we already show the chromestatus link in the previous message? if so, i think
we can drop it here.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp:287: "See
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104 "
same

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "subsequent
message."
nit: maybe 'subsequent console message'? reading this now, message isn't totally
clear - as a dev i might wonder what kind of message we are referring to.

[shivanisha, 2017-01-24 17:22:38]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp:272:
"connectivity. See "
On 2017/01/24 at 16:45:26, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> do we already show the chromestatus link in the previous message? if so, i
think we can drop it here.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp:287: "See
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104 "
On 2017/01/24 at 16:45:26, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> same

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/140001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/loader/FrameFetchContext.cpp:96: "subsequent
message."
On 2017/01/24 at 16:45:26, Bryan McQuade wrote:
> nit: maybe 'subsequent console message'? reading this now, message isn't
totally clear - as a dev i might wonder what kind of message we are referring
to.

Done.

[shivanisha, 2017-01-24 17:23:25]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-24 17:23:48]

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

[shivanisha, 2017-01-24 18:00:29]

Some of the bot failures being tracked via
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=684573
Once they are fixed, hopefully commit will proceed.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-24 19:12:38]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-24 19:12:38]

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_...)

[shivanisha, 2017-01-25 20:27:12]

The CQ bit was checked by shivanisha@chromium.org

[shivanisha, 2017-01-25 20:27:13]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from japhet@chromium.org,
bmcquade@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/#ps160001
(title: "Feedback incorporated.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-25 20:27:55]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-25 20:27:57]

This CL has an open dependency (Issue 2474943002 Patch 120001). Please resolve
the dependency and try again.
If you are sure that there is no real dependency, please use one of the options
listed in https://goo.gl/9Es4OR to land the CL.

[shivanisha, 2017-01-30 16:24:15]

The CQ bit was checked by shivanisha@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 16:24:45]

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, 2017-01-30 18:37:05]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 160001, "attempt_start_ts": 1485793455950910,
"parent_rev": "90efe3450f9f29a5535bce77249d064b354ff378", "commit_rev":
"13905c2317d62f3f657e7463aa58c093567dd1cc"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 18:37:50]

Description was changed from

==========
Making the warning message more clear and adding an error message when the
script actually gets blocked and a warning message if the script is not blocked
due to cache hit.

BUG=658983
==========

to

==========
Making the warning message more clear and adding an error message when the
script actually gets blocked and a warning message if the script is not blocked
due to cache hit.

BUG=658983

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#447018}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/13905c2317d62f3f657e7463aa58...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 18:37:52]

Committed patchset #7 (id:160001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/13905c2317d62f3f657e7463aa58...

[tkent, 2017-04-04 04:12:35]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/160001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/160001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp:274:
WTFLogAlways("%s", message.utf8().data());
Please do not use WTFLogAlways.  It's deprecated.

[shivanisha, 2017-04-04 14:24:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/160001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2640163002/diff/160001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/html/parser/HTMLParserScriptRunner.cpp:274:
WTFLogAlways("%s", message.utf8().data());
On 2017/04/04 at 04:12:35, tkent wrote:
> Please do not use WTFLogAlways.  It's deprecated.

Thanks for pointing out. What is the recommended way to log?