Revert of IDL: Treat undefined as missing for optional arguments with defaults

Revert of IDL: Treat undefined as missing for optional arguments with defaults (https://codereview.chromium.org/373043004/)

Reason for revert:
The following layout tests fail on Mac:
fast/css/shorthand-setProperty-important.html
fast/dom/Comment/comment-constructor.html
fast/dom/DOMImplementation/createHTMLDocument-optional-title.html
fast/dom/HTMLDialogElement/dialog-return-value.html
fast/dom/NodeIterator/NodeIterator-basic.html
fast/dom/Text/text-constructor.html
fast/dom/TreeWalker/TreeWalker-basic.html
fast/dom/Window/custom-constructors.html
fast/dom/Window/alert-undefined.html
fast/encoding/api/basics.html
fast/js/custom-constructors.html
fast/workers/shared-worker-name.html
media/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-istypesupported.html

Original issue's description:
> IDL: Treat undefined as missing for optional arguments with defaults
> 
> For optional arguments with defaults, treat undefined as missing simply
> by checking 'info[N].IsUndefined()' instead of 'N <= info.Length()'.
> 
> This works since V8's indexing operator returns an undefined value for
> all out-of-range indexes.
> 
> Changes in behavior that had (or now has) testing coverade matches
> Firefox (Nightly), except in the case of WebKitCSSMatrix's constructor,
> which Firefox naturally doesn't have.
> 
> BUG=335871
> 
> Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=177857

TBR=haraken@chromium.org,arv@chromium.org,jl@opera.com
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=335871
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=177866

[Justin Novosad, 2014-07-10 18:23:14]

Created Revert of IDL: Treat undefined as missing for optional arguments with
defaults

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-10 18:24:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/junov@chromium.org/382833003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-10 18:24:55]

Change committed as 177866

[Jens Widell, 2014-07-10 19:37:29]

On 2014/07/10 18:23:14, junov wrote:
> Created Revert of IDL: Treat undefined as missing for optional arguments with
> defaults

Strange that all of those tests would fail (and all passed when I committed it.)
Most of them are really very simple. One could almost get the feeling the build
in which they failed didn't actually have the fix (but ran against updated
tests.)

A buildbot link to some build that failed would be appreciated, if possible.

[Justin Novosad, 2014-07-10 19:39:45]

Failed build:
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Win7/builds/17994


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:37 PM, <jl@opera.com> wrote:

> On 2014/07/10 18:23:14, junov wrote:
>
>> Created Revert of IDL: Treat undefined as missing for optional arguments
>> with
>> defaults
>>
>
> Strange that all of those tests would fail (and all passed when I
> committed it.)
> Most of them are really very simple. One could almost get the feeling the
> build
> in which they failed didn't actually have the fix (but ran against updated
> tests.)
>
> A buildbot link to some build that failed would be appreciated, if
> possible.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/382833003/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to blink-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Justin Novosad, 2014-07-10 19:44:12]

The actual vs. expected results from the test run sound the same to me
(https://storage.googleapis.com/chromium-layout-test-archives/WebKit_Win7/1799...)
 but the test is failing with an "audio mismatch" error.

[Jens Widell, 2014-07-10 19:44:23]

On 2014/07/10 19:39:45, junov wrote:
> Failed build:
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Win7/builds/17994

That's a Win7 build, and it didn't fail these tests AFAICT. Wrong link?

[sof, 2014-07-10 19:47:00]

http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Mac10.7/builds/...

[Jens Widell, 2014-07-10 19:52:41]

On 2014/07/10 19:47:00, sof wrote:
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Mac10.7/builds/...

Thanks.

It looks like it might actually have been running a build without the fix. The
"extract_build" step has some output indicating that it failed to find the build
it was supposed to fetch, and then fetched something else instead.

[Justin Novosad, 2014-07-10 19:54:12]

Oops. sorry. I reverted a lot of stuff today. I was looking at the wrong one.

[Justin Novosad, 2014-07-10 19:55:58]

I have been quick on the revert trigger because I was facing a lot of failures
to clean up earlier. If you conclude this was just bot flake, go ahead and
resubmit. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Jens Widell, 2014-07-10 20:04:44]

On 2014/07/10 19:55:58, junov wrote:
> I have been quick on the revert trigger because I was facing a lot of failures
> to clean up earlier. If you conclude this was just bot flake, go ahead and
> resubmit. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I think it was a flake. These tests are really quite simple, and test quite
unrelated things, so I see no logical reason why they should all fail just on
Mac. (Which they of course didn't when I committed the patch through CQ in the
first place.)