Regression(r178540): Traversal<*Element>::lastWithin() is incorrect

Regression(r178540): Traversal<*Element>::lastWithin() is incorrect

Traversal<*Element>::lastWithin() is incorrect after r178540 because it
changed from using ElementTraversal::lastWithin() to using Node.lastChild()
when doing node traversal. The proper API for this is
NodeTraversal::lastWithin() as we want the last descendant, not the last
child.

This was not caught by layout tests because this template specialization
is currently unused. Current callers are using the simpler Traversal<Element>
template specialization.

R=abarth@chromium.org, esprehn@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=179057

[Inactive, 2014-07-24 18:08:45]

Sorry about that, I introduced this bug in
https://codereview.chromium.org/406843002/diff/1/Source/core/dom/ElementTrave...

[Inactive, 2014-07-24 18:12:46]

At this point, the code for the Traversal<Element>::lastWithin() template
specialization is actually identical to the generic implementation so I am
planning to get rid of this one in a follow-up. We will then gain test coverage
for the generic implementation of lastWithin().

[Inactive, 2014-07-25 15:12:11]

On 2014/07/24 18:12:46, Chris Dumez wrote:
> At this point, the code for the Traversal<Element>::lastWithin() template
> specialization is actually identical to the generic implementation so I am
> planning to get rid of this one in a follow-up. We will then gain test
coverage
> for the generic implementation of lastWithin().

I did the template specialization removal in
https://codereview.chromium.org/340573004/

[esprehn, 2014-07-28 19:11:45]

Can we just delete this unused code instead? Having untested code sucks.

lgtm

[Inactive, 2014-07-28 20:28:56]

On 2014/07/28 19:11:45, esprehn wrote:
> Can we just delete this unused code instead? Having untested code sucks.
> 
> lgtm

As said in the previous comment, I am removing the Element specialization in
https://codereview.chromium.org/340573004/. So this generic code will then be
used.

[Inactive, 2014-07-28 20:29:00]

The CQ bit was checked by ch.dumez@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-28 20:29:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ch.dumez@samsung.com/416933002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-28 20:32:20]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/19288)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-28 20:33:00]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-28 20:33:01]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/19289)

[Inactive, 2014-07-28 20:36:56]

The CQ bit was checked by ch.dumez@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-28 20:37:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ch.dumez@samsung.com/416933002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-28 21:12:52]

Change committed as 179057