Well, this is a tricky case with no obvious answer. You've found one case of array.some(...), which most likely will change the behavior of the code. For the other cases where a second argument is passed is explicitly, it depends on the value whether it changes behavior, if it's the same value that was added, then it's fine.
One concrete thing you could do is to refine the use counter to only count the cases where the 2nd argument results in has() returning false instead of true, or where delete() doesn't delete anything but would without the 2nd argument. However, I'm not sure that would be informative, if it reduces the use counter by 10x we'd still be unsure about how serious the breakage is to users. In your manual testing of these sites, were you able to confirm the code paths were taken, and unable to spot anything at all broken on the pages? Did you compare to how the sites work without the changes? I would say that given testing of sites that hit the code path, if you can't find anything at all breaking, then we should try to ship the change. On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 3:40 PM Debadree Chatterjee <debadree...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tried navigating and clicking around the sites, but they didn't seem to > be breaking atleast even though this exception is being raised. Are there > any more investigations I can do? > > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 3:59:21 AM UTC+5:30 abot...@igalia.com wrote: > >> As for having a premonition that this would be added, there is at least >> one post in the original Github issue saying that the poster already >> expected the two-argument overload to be supported ( >> https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/335#issuecomment-919700370). >> >> Andreu >> On 5/18/23 23:42, PhistucK wrote: >> >> Most of them are just weird, really. I can only imagine they started with >> a .set with an empty string as a second parameter and ended up changing >> to .delete without deleting the second parameter. >> (Or they had a premonition and knew there will be a second parameter with >> the specific purpose you want to ship hehe) >> >> I imagine those were outliers, I would not worry much about it (also the >> bound callback is a bit too convoluted to be widely used), but that is just >> me. :) >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYeNJbXWTCa3Uq8s4CLaP-kEyfdvHH62FF_HrU2kEKds9g%40mail.gmail.com.
