|
|
DescriptionBrowser plugin should never handle MouseWheels.
Now that we do direct routing of MouseWheel events to guests,
BrowserPlugin should (1) never mark a MouseWheel as handled (this may
cancel GesturePinch on Mac), and (2) it should never forward the
MouseWheel to the guest. This CL implements this policy.
BUG=695907
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2745783002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#456125}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/1bbc9fc2b43ec7b02f5f781ffb70675c5def4220
Patch Set 1 #
Depends on Patchset: Messages
Total messages: 26 (14 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by wjmaclean@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Description was changed from ========== Browser plugin should never handle MouseWheels. Now that we do direct routing of MouseWheel events to guests, BrowserPlugin should (1) never mark a MouseWheel as handled (this may cancel GesturePinch on Mac), and (2) it should never forward the MouseWheel to the guest. This CL implements this policy. BUG=695907 ========== to ========== Browser plugin should never handle MouseWheels. Now that we do direct routing of MouseWheel events to guests, BrowserPlugin should (1) never mark a MouseWheel as handled (this may cancel GesturePinch on Mac), and (2) it should never forward the MouseWheel to the guest. This CL implements this policy. BUG=695907 ==========
wjmaclean@chromium.org changed reviewers: + avallee@chromium.org
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
avallee@ - Could you please do a non-Owners review?
LGTM. I'm not sure exactly how this originally worked. This was preventing the embedder or guest from getting the wheel events?
On 2017/03/10 17:03:31, avallee wrote: > LGTM. > > I'm not sure exactly how this originally worked. This was preventing the > embedder or guest from getting the wheel events? Even before event-routing, I don't think it worked in all cases ... e.g. Mac GesturePinch would still have been broken. But the basic idea, as with other BrowserPlugin event handling, was that BrowserPlugin would claim to have handled the vent, while quietly forwarding it to the guest, which may or may not actually handle the event.
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
The CQ bit was checked by wjmaclean@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has received an L-G-T-M from a full committer. Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer, _not_ a full super star committer. Committers are members of the group "project-chromium-committers". Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.
The CQ bit was checked by wjmaclean@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has received an L-G-T-M from a full committer. Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer, _not_ a full super star committer. Committers are members of the group "project-chromium-committers". Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.
creis@chromium.org changed reviewers: + creis@chromium.org
RS LGTM, given avallee's review. (Are there OOPIF tests covering this for when we switch away from BrowserPlugin, so that we don't regress?)
On 2017/03/10 18:44:09, Charlie Reis (slow) wrote: > RS LGTM, given avallee's review. (Are there OOPIF tests covering this for when > we switch away from BrowserPlugin, so that we don't regress?) I'll have to investigate, but my guess is that, since GesturePinch from Mac only ever gets sent to the mainframe, and in OOPIF there's no BrowserPlugin to lie about the event's 'handled' status, that there's nothing left to test. But I will manually verify that this doesn't show up on Mac+WebView+O)PIF just to be sure.
The CQ bit was checked by wjmaclean@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
CQ is committing da patch. Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1489172776074010, "parent_rev": "6e26494d0caa38a608ecd3c7852a58387dcaaf96", "commit_rev": "1bbc9fc2b43ec7b02f5f781ffb70675c5def4220"}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Browser plugin should never handle MouseWheels. Now that we do direct routing of MouseWheel events to guests, BrowserPlugin should (1) never mark a MouseWheel as handled (this may cancel GesturePinch on Mac), and (2) it should never forward the MouseWheel to the guest. This CL implements this policy. BUG=695907 ========== to ========== Browser plugin should never handle MouseWheels. Now that we do direct routing of MouseWheel events to guests, BrowserPlugin should (1) never mark a MouseWheel as handled (this may cancel GesturePinch on Mac), and (2) it should never forward the MouseWheel to the guest. This CL implements this policy. BUG=695907 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2745783002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#456125} Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/1bbc9fc2b43ec7b02f5f781ffb70... ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/1bbc9fc2b43ec7b02f5f781ffb70...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2017/03/10 19:13:59, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote: > Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/1bbc9fc2b43ec7b02f5f781ffb70... I manually tested on Mac with --enable-feature=CrossProcessFramesForGuests, and this issue does not arise there, even without this fix. |