document.lastModified: treat invalid dates like unknown ones.

document.lastModified: treat invalid dates like unknown ones.

If the value supplied via Last-Modified: is unparseable, treat the
modification date as unknown and return the current time (rather than
00-00-0000 00:00:00)

This aligns behavior with all other browsers.

R=foolip
BUG=693053
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2698773005
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#451123}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/de777ac871873450a4cb4b77c9b2fa7bdc3be990

[sof, 2017-02-16 19:11:20]

The CQ bit was checked by sigbjornf@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-16 19:12:59]

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

[sof, 2017-02-16 19:15:53]

sigbjornf@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ foolip@chromium.org, mkwst@chromium.org

[sof, 2017-02-16 19:15:53]

please take a look.

A simple omission in the implementation, everyone else handles this better.

[foolip, 2017-02-16 19:22:08]

lgtm, I guess there isn't a spec that explicitly says that one shouldn't invent
a date 00-00-0000 00:00:00 in this situation?

[sof, 2017-02-16 19:31:38]

On 2017/02/16 19:22:08, foolip wrote:
> lgtm, I guess there isn't a spec that explicitly says that one shouldn't
invent
> a date 00-00-0000 00:00:00 in this situation?

Not directly per https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-document-lastmodified , but
the response payload didn't include a valid Last-Modified: (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7232#section-2.2 ), hence it shouldn't be
considered & the modification date is unknown. I think that's a reasonable
interpretation.

[sof, 2017-02-16 20:17:43]

Description was changed from

==========
document.lastModified: treat invalid dates like unknown ones.

If the value supplied via Last-Modified: is unparseable, treat the
modification date as unknown and return the current time (rather than
00-00-0000 00:00:00)

This aligns behavior with all other browsers.

R=
BUG=693053
==========

to

==========
document.lastModified: treat invalid dates like unknown ones.

If the value supplied via Last-Modified: is unparseable, treat the
modification date as unknown and return the current time (rather than
00-00-0000 00:00:00)

This aligns behavior with all other browsers.

R=foolip
BUG=693053
==========

[sof, 2017-02-16 21:31:31]

The CQ bit was unchecked by sigbjornf@opera.com

[sof, 2017-02-16 21:31:40]

The CQ bit was checked by sigbjornf@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-16 21:33:35]

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, 2017-02-16 22:31:43]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1487280700525440, "parent_rev":
"4877cda4b907f3198753e4a2bd4fc5c28ed5cbf1", "commit_rev":
"de777ac871873450a4cb4b77c9b2fa7bdc3be990"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-16 22:32:20]

Description was changed from

==========
document.lastModified: treat invalid dates like unknown ones.

If the value supplied via Last-Modified: is unparseable, treat the
modification date as unknown and return the current time (rather than
00-00-0000 00:00:00)

This aligns behavior with all other browsers.

R=foolip
BUG=693053
==========

to

==========
document.lastModified: treat invalid dates like unknown ones.

If the value supplied via Last-Modified: is unparseable, treat the
modification date as unknown and return the current time (rather than
00-00-0000 00:00:00)

This aligns behavior with all other browsers.

R=foolip
BUG=693053

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2698773005
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#451123}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/de777ac871873450a4cb4b77c9b2...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-16 22:32:22]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/de777ac871873450a4cb4b77c9b2...

[foolip, 2017-02-17 03:33:55]

On 2017/02/16 19:31:38, sof wrote:
> On 2017/02/16 19:22:08, foolip wrote:
> > lgtm, I guess there isn't a spec that explicitly says that one shouldn't
> invent
> > a date 00-00-0000 00:00:00 in this situation?
> 
> Not directly per https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-document-lastmodified , but
> the response payload didn't include a valid Last-Modified: (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7232#section-2.2 ), hence it shouldn't be
> considered & the modification date is unknown. I think that's a reasonable
> interpretation.

Yeah, https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-document-lastmodified is clear enough on
this point. (Didn't check it before.)