Dropping [NoInterfaceObject] from XMLHttpRequestEventTarget

Dropping [NoInterfaceObject] from XMLHttpRequestEventTarget

As [NoInterfaceObject] removed in latest specs:
https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#xmlhttprequesteventtarget

BUG=448766
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=189416

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-01-14 14:41:47]

paritosh.in@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ tyoshino@chromium.org

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-01-14 14:41:48]

@tyoshino: Please have a look on this change.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-01-19 04:23:59]

On 2015/01/14 14:41:48, Paritosh Kumar wrote:
> @tyoshino: Please have a look on this change.

Can we wait a few more days to see no more comments are made on the following
bug?
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27823

Could you also please check
global-interface-listing.html?
It's marked as needs rebaseline.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-01-19 04:25:53]

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/1/Source/core/xmlhttprequest/X...
File Source/core/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/1/Source/core/xmlhttprequest/X...
Source/core/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget.idl:28: Exposed=(Window,
Worker)
Shouldn't we align this with [Exposed] for XMLHttpRequest?
http://www.chromium.org/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-attributes#TOC-Expose...

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-01-20 03:49:13]

Thanks Takeshi

> Could you also please check
> global-interface-listing.html?

Added entry for XMLHttpRequestEventTarget interface in expectation file.

> Can we wait a few more days to see no more comments are made on the following
> bug?
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27823

We should... 
I'm also watching for any more comments on this bug.

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/1/Source/core/xmlhttprequest/X...
File Source/core/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/1/Source/core/xmlhttprequest/X...
Source/core/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget.idl:28: Exposed=(Window,
Worker)
On 2015/01/19 04:25:53, tyoshino wrote:
> Shouldn't we align this with [Exposed] for XMLHttpRequest?
>
http://www.chromium.org/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-attributes#TOC-Expose...


Thanks. As per my reading and understanding, I think We should align [Exposed]
for both XMLHttpRequest and XMLHttpRequestEventTarget interface. Aligning this
with XMLHttpRequest. Please share your suggestions.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-01-28 14:50:07]

tyoshino@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sigbjornf@opera.com

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-01-28 14:50:08]

lgtm. There has been no activity on the bug. I don't have any strong opinion
about whether they should be mixin or exposed for ability to extend both XHR and
XHRUpload.

I'd like to +sof to hear his opinion.

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/1/Source/core/xmlhttprequest/X...
File Source/core/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/1/Source/core/xmlhttprequest/X...
Source/core/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget.idl:28: Exposed=(Window,
Worker)
On 2015/01/20 03:49:13, Paritosh Kumar wrote:
> On 2015/01/19 04:25:53, tyoshino wrote:
> > Shouldn't we align this with [Exposed] for XMLHttpRequest?
> >
>
http://www.chromium.org/blink/webidl/blink-idl-extended-attributes#TOC-Expose...
> 
> 
> Thanks. As per my reading and understanding, I think We should align [Exposed]
> for both XMLHttpRequest and XMLHttpRequestEventTarget interface. Aligning this
> with XMLHttpRequest. Please share your suggestions.

Looks good

[sof, 2015-01-28 15:27:24]

On 2015/01/28 14:50:08, tyoshino wrote:
> lgtm. There has been no activity on the bug. I don't have any strong opinion
> about whether they should be mixin or exposed for ability to extend both XHR
and
> XHRUpload.
> 
> I'd like to +sof to hear his opinion.
> 

Has anyone else exposed it already?

Blink doesn't have data properties on the prototype, so this "shared proto"
argument doesn't apply atm. (right?) With that in mind, it seems like waiting
out a clear(er) conclusion on that bug might be worth considering.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-01-29 02:25:45]

On 2015/01/28 15:27:24, sof wrote:
> On 2015/01/28 14:50:08, tyoshino wrote:
> > lgtm. There has been no activity on the bug. I don't have any strong opinion
> > about whether they should be mixin or exposed for ability to extend both XHR
> and
> > XHRUpload.
> > 
> > I'd like to +sof to hear his opinion.
> > 
> 
> Has anyone else exposed it already?
> 
> Blink doesn't have data properties on the prototype, so this "shared proto"
> argument doesn't apply atm. (right?) With that in mind, it seems like waiting

I think it's right, and we are trying to fix that (crbug.com/43394)?

> out a clear(er) conclusion on that bug might be worth considering.

[sof, 2015-01-30 19:02:10]

I sense there won't be many more updates on that upstream bug, so if tyoshino@
wants to move ahead, that sounds ok to me.

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/20001/LayoutTests/http/tests/x...
File
LayoutTests/http/tests/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget-interface-is-visible.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/848173003/diff/20001/LayoutTests/http/tests/x...
LayoutTests/http/tests/xmlhttprequest/XMLHttpRequestEventTarget-interface-is-visible.html:9:
shouldBeTrue("objXmlHttpEventTarget instanceof XMLHttpRequestEventTarget",
true);
Could you add a line to fast/js/script-tests/instanceof-XMLHttpRequest.js
instead? http/tests/xmlhttprequest is preferably only used for XHR tests that
require network traffix, which this one doesn't.

If you want to go even better, then splitting out the XMLHttpRequest instanceof
tests from instanceof-*.js in fast/js/ and make a new test in
fast/xmlhttprequest/ would be even better, as fast/js/ is a bit unfocused and
not a directory we try add even more tests to.

I won't insist on that last part (but it would be nice.. :) ), but at least
these instanceof tests should be kept together (and outside http/.)

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-02-02 09:37:10]

Thanks Sof
As per your suggestion removed XMLHttpRequest instanceof tests from
fast/js/instanceof-XMLHttpRequest.js and created new test in
fast/xmlhttprequest and added tests for XMLHttpRequestEventTarget also
in this file.
As now fast/js/instanceof-XMLHttpRequest.js does not contain tests
for XMLHttpRequest instanceof, renamed these files to instanceof-test.js,
similar for .html and expectation file also.

[sof, 2015-02-02 09:52:52]

Great, thanks for doing that extra work. Transitioning to testharness.js can be
done later for XHR tests.

Could you also add similar tests for ".upload"? i.e.,

 shouldBeTrue("(new XMLHttpRequest).upload instanceof XMLHttpRequestUpload");
 shouldBeTrue("(new XMLHttpRequest).upload instanceof
XMLHttpRequestEventTarget");

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-02-02 10:16:19]

On 2015/02/02 09:52:52, sof wrote:
> Great, thanks for doing that extra work. Transitioning to testharness.js can
be
> done later for XHR tests.
> 
> Could you also add similar tests for ".upload"? i.e.,
> 
>  shouldBeTrue("(new XMLHttpRequest).upload instanceof XMLHttpRequestUpload");
>  shouldBeTrue("(new XMLHttpRequest).upload instanceof
> XMLHttpRequestEventTarget");

Thanks sof
Added tests for .upload.
Please have a look.

[sof, 2015-02-02 14:13:33]

lgtm

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-02-02 17:13:16]

The CQ bit was checked by paritosh.in@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-02 17:14:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/848173003/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-02 18:51:01]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-02 18:51:02]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/4...)

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-02-03 07:42:05]

@tyoshino/sof: Please have a look, try jobs are failing for tests
global-interface-listing-*-worker.html, so updated expectation for these tests.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-02-03 13:25:21]

On 2015/02/03 07:42:05, Paritosh Kumar wrote:
> @tyoshino/sof: Please have a look, try jobs are failing for tests
> global-interface-listing-*-worker.html, so updated expectation for these
tests.

lgtm

[Paritosh Kumar, 2015-02-03 13:26:09]

The CQ bit was checked by paritosh.in@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-03 13:26:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/848173003/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-03 14:57:10]

Committed patchset #7 (id:120001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=189416