Closed
Bug 1168783
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
expose principal in mozIApplication
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: DOM: Apps, defect)
Core Graveyard
DOM: Apps
Tracking
(firefox41 fixed)
RESOLVED
FIXED
NGA S2 (12Jun)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox41 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: allstars.chh, Assigned: ferjm)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [s3])
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
6.34 KB,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1168300#c4
"it would be better for mozIApplication to expose a principal."
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → ferjmoreno
Whiteboard: [s3]
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Blocks: nga-toolkit-service-workers
Updated•10 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → NGA S2 (12Jun)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Blocks: ServiceWorkers-B2G
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8614692 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8614692 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8614692 [details] [diff] [review]
v1
Review of attachment 8614692 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I don't think this is the right approach. I'd rather add a principal getter on mozIApplication.prototype because cloneAppObject() uses _setAppProperties but we don't want the principal on cloned objects (we expect them to be stringifyable).
Attachment #8614692 -
Flags: review+ → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8614692 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8615952 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8615952 [details] [diff] [review]
v2
Review of attachment 8615952 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: dom/apps/AppsUtils.jsm
@@ +84,5 @@
> + this.localId,
> + this.installerIsBrowser
> + );
> + } catch(e) {
> + dump("Could not create app principal " + e + "\n");
that means we will return undefined if we end up there. Can we either force to return null here or initialize _principal to null in the constructor?
Attachment #8615952 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•8 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•