Hey everyone! Indeed the site doesn't load properly even if we use unmodified chromium as Phistuck suggested! so sorry for the confusion caused. I have updated my CL https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4519040 to include both use counters and a runtime flag and am awaiting necessary approvals so we can move forward!
Thank you! Regards, Debadree On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 3:02:40 PM UTC+5:30 mk...@chromium.org wrote: > LGTM3. Please do make sure this is behind a feature flag just in case the > use counters are higher than expected. > > -mike > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:57 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> LGTM2 >> >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:42 AM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Indeed, Chromium isn’t built with all of the same codecs, so that’s the >>> most likely explanation for the video not playing. >>> >>> I would say that if these pages aren’t broken in Safari then that’s >>> evidence enough that it’s not a serious failure mode. >>> >>> At this point I think we know enough about the risks here. >>> >>> LGTM1 to ship with the use counters added so we can get stats on how >>> common it is if we need to revert/disable after a regression. >>> >>> I would suggest re-testing these sites with Chrome Canary after the >>> change lands to confirm no visible breakage. >>> >>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 10:20 PhistucK <phis...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Does it work with an unmodified Chromium (from >>>> download-chromium.appspot.com for example)? >>>> If not, then it might just require non-free codecs, Widevine and >>>> similar. >>>> >>>> ☆*PhistucK* >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 7:21 PM Debadree Chatterjee <debad...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey everyone! >>>>> >>>>> sorry for the delays, I tested things locally with both Safari tech >>>>> preview and my Chromium changes, and unfortunately, I see the breakage in >>>>> the videos still and I don't see this happening on Safari, is it possible >>>>> that my local Chromium config is to blame here? I tested my changes >>>>> against >>>>> the WPTs and the wpt suite seems to pass, would anyone try local testing >>>>> with my CL here >>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4519040 to >>>>> see if this reproduces for you? I have also updated the CL to include a >>>>> use >>>>> counter for the change so if anyone would review it would be great! PFA >>>>> how >>>>> it looks on my chromium[image: Screenshot 2023-06-12 at 11.44.29 >>>>> PM.png] >>>>> note the player error in the background. >>>>> >>>>> Thank You! >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Debadree >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 11:44:12 PM UTC+5:30 Debadree Chatterjee >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> hello! >>>>>> >>>>>> I checked in safari technology preview pretty weird I dont observe >>>>>> the same breaking behaviour, I am trying to investigate why that is so! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:49:22 PM UTC+5:30 Debadree Chatterjee >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you so much for finding out simon!! so then nuxt is probably >>>>>>> not to blame here >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:39:51 PM UTC+5:30 Simon Lecutiez wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > I am still analyzing if this is a library issue or maybe its some >>>>>>>> specific style of writing nuxt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Both websites were made by the same agency (Akaru >>>>>>>> <https://akaru.fr/>), so it could even be a homemade library or a >>>>>>>> single developer’s style ;) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hope it helps, >>>>>>>> Simon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le lundi 5 juin 2023 à 17:07:47 UTC+2, Debadree Chatterjee a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have attached the difference in how they look for >>>>>>>>> ttps://maisonyoko.com/ <https://maisonyoko.com/> note that the >>>>>>>>> background video doesn't load maybe since for local testing I am >>>>>>>>> raising >>>>>>>>> exceptions thats why its the causing issue (I am checking this) as >>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>> nuxt issue I am still analyzing if this is a library issue or maybe >>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>> some specific style of writing nuxt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for the CL i shall then include both the runtime flag and use >>>>>>>>> counter in the same CL hopefully by tomorrow >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Debadree >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:47:44 PM UTC+5:30 Philip Jägenstedt >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Debadree, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I also noticed the code was similar for multiple sites, I'm glad >>>>>>>>>> you were able to track it down to a common framework, Nuxt. I would >>>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>>>> filing an issue at https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt about this >>>>>>>>>> problem, maybe they can fix it in the next release. Since you've >>>>>>>>>> confirmed >>>>>>>>>> that some sites won't load the video correctly, and fixing it would >>>>>>>>>> require >>>>>>>>>> upgrading the framework, it's important to have a fix out there by >>>>>>>>>> the time >>>>>>>>>> the change is done in Chrome. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since the WebKit change >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/pull/13500> was included in STP >>>>>>>>>> 171 >>>>>>>>>> <https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-technology-preview-release-notes/stp-release-171>, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I tested https://maisonyoko.com/ and >>>>>>>>>> https://crossfitdespentes.fr/ in both Safari and STP 171, but I >>>>>>>>>> couldn't see any difference. Which video should I expect to not load >>>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>>> result of this change? I was expecting something to be broken, and >>>>>>>>>> then I'd >>>>>>>>>> file a WebKit regression bug about it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As for whether to bake the changes into a single CL or to split >>>>>>>>>> it, I don't have a strong opinion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 9:05 PM Debadree Chatterjee < >>>>>>>>>> debad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So I did a more thorough testing! and it seems there is >>>>>>>>>>> something common in both these two sites they are using the Nuxt >>>>>>>>>>> Framework >>>>>>>>>>> and the breakage in both of them is similar they have videos on the >>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>> section of their landing page with animations on top of them, due >>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>> breakage it seems the video doesn't load! If you look at the call >>>>>>>>>>> sites too >>>>>>>>>>> the code looks very similar >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> for https://maisonyoko.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-06-05 at 12.24.34 AM.png] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> for https://crossfitdespentes.fr/ >>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-06-05 at 12.25.09 AM.png] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Both of them nuxt >>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-06-05 at 12.27.12 AM.png] >>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-06-05 at 12.27.50 AM.png] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not familiar with nuxt I will try to get to know about it, >>>>>>>>>>> but it seems like there could be some problem with nuxt, If any >>>>>>>>>>> reader here >>>>>>>>>>> knows nuxt would love to reach out! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank You >>>>>>>>>>> Debadree >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:38:18 PM UTC+5:30 Debadree >>>>>>>>>>> Chatterjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Philip! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my initial testing, I didn't see any observable change in >>>>>>>>>>>> site behavior, but I shall confirm once again! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As for the kill switch and use counter should I update my >>>>>>>>>>>> existing CL to include these or make a new one containing the >>>>>>>>>>>> counter to >>>>>>>>>>>> just measure the effects? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:28:39 PM UTC+5:30 Philip >>>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Debadree, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for your hard work on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To confirm, these two sites were from the 20 listed earlier in >>>>>>>>>>>>> this thread, is that right? Now that we've confirmed that these >>>>>>>>>>>>> two sites >>>>>>>>>>>>> will have a different behavior, can you observe any difference on >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://maisonyoko.com/ or https://crossfitdespentes.fr/ with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes, but without the exception-throwing? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Generally, finding a behavior change in 10% of tested sites is >>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit concerning, but if it means that only ~10% of the cases hit >>>>>>>>>>>>> by the use >>>>>>>>>>>>> counter >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4478> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are problematic, it could be <0.001% of sites, and we've >>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully made breaking changes at that level in the past. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you now have the code for throwing an exception, would >>>>>>>>>>>>> it be straightforward to turn that into a use counter that we can >>>>>>>>>>>>> land and >>>>>>>>>>>>> get a better measure of this? I think as discussed previously in >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread, we should considering shipping this with a killswitch and >>>>>>>>>>>>> a use >>>>>>>>>>>>> counter, so we can both revert and check the usage if we get >>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of >>>>>>>>>>>>> breakage. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 5:16 PM Debadree Chatterjee < >>>>>>>>>>>>> debad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Philip! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even I was surprised, turns out I was wrong about the delete >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (so sorry), I have observed a breakage now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The has function output example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-05-30 at 7.36.36 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The updated delete function: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ```c++ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> void URLSearchParams::deleteAllWithNameOrTuple(const String& >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> const String& >>>>>>>>>>>>>> value, ExceptionState& exception_state) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> std::vector<int> indices_to_remove_with_name_val, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (wtf_size_t i = 0; i < params_.size(); i++) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (params_[i].first == name && >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (value.IsNull() || params_[i].second == value)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name_val.push_back(i); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (wtf_size_t i = 0; i < params_.size(); i++) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (params_[i].first == name) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name.push_back(i); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (indices_to_remove_with_name_val.size() != >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name.size()) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DLOG(ERROR) << "indices_to_remove_with_name_val.size() != >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name.size()"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception_state.ThrowException(1, "Divergent behavior"); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // match the values of indices_to_remove_with_name_val, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (size_t i = 0; i < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name_val.size(); i++) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (indices_to_remove_with_name_val[i] != >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name[i]) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DLOG(ERROR) << "indices_to_remove_with_name_val[i] != >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices_to_remove_with_name[i]"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception_state.ThrowException(1, "Divergent behavior"); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (wtf_size_t i = 0; i < params_.size();) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (params_[i].first == name && >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (value.IsNull() || params_[i].second == value)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> params_.EraseAt(i); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } else { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i++; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RunUpdateSteps(); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The example outputs of the delete function: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-05-30 at 8.39.03 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example Breakages: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In https://maisonyoko.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-05-30 at 8.33.59 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://crossfitdespentes.fr/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-05-30 at 8.42.01 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other than these sites didn't notice a breakage. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the breakages seem to be in the delete function >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only, so sorry once again for the mistake before. Do let me know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this looks ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank You, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debadree >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 5:34:18 PM UTC+5:30 Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Debadree, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's very promising! The code looks right to me, but just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be sure, did you verify that the exceptions are thrown in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test case >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the 2nd argument makes a difference? It's a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspicious when no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sites at all threw the exception :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:45 AM Debadree Chatterjee < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Everyone! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delays I followed Philip's suggestion on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing if behavior diverged in these sites, I checked this by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions if the actual return value is different if I used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name only or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both name and value, I am including the code for reference: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool URLSearchParams::has(const String& name, const >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String& value, ExceptionState& exception_state) const { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool found_match_name = false, found_match_name_value = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false; for (const auto& param : params_) { if (param.first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == name) { found_match_name = true; break; } } for (const >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> auto& param : params_) { if (param.first == name && >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (value.IsNull() || param.second == value)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found_match_name_value = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true; break; } } if (found_match_name != >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found_match_name_value) { exception_state.ThrowException(1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Divergent behavior"); return false; } return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found_match_name_value; } void >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URLSearchParams::deleteAllWithNameOrTuple(const String& >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name, const String& value, ExceptionState& >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception_state) { for (wtf_size_t i = 0; i < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> params_.size();) { bool match_by_name = params_[i].first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == name; bool match_by_value = !value.IsNull() && >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> params_[i].second == value; if (match_by_name) { if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (match_by_value) { params_.EraseAt(i); } else { // It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have been deleted if value wasnt there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception_state.ThrowException(1, "Divergent behavior"); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return; } } else { i++; } } RunUpdateSteps(); } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The good news is none of the example sites broke or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered this exception at all, I navigated lightly through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the sites >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but no exception was observed, whereas if I raised an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception whenever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> double variables are passed all the sites would give an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have seen in the previous mails. Do let me know if this seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debadree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:35:59 PM UTC+5:30 Debadree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chatterjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Understood! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going with the local testing approach for now, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think what I will do is raise exceptions if a difference in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noted as Philip suggested, and see how many of these example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sites raise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. This may take a little bit of time I think but trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my best! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank You! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 9:13:04 PM UTC+5:30 Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If refining the use counter is easy, that would be good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do, even if we don't block shipping on getting stable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data for the use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think that careful local testing is the best way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get a sense for the risk on this. If you're confident you've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit the code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path on the sites in question, and nothing at all changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the user, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I think we should try to ship this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 6:59 PM Debadree Chatterjee < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For basic testing of the sites, I saw no breaking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior, I did a few actions on sites like adding things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the cart, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to go the login flow clicking on navigation, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would need to go a little deep on that, Should I submit a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new CL for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter thing? or do deeper local testing? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:09:26 PM UTC+5:30 Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debad...@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+...@chromium.org. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYcWTVniD-0ny7qC7QyjnUe%2BfFrTsnvHzCC1GwCiea72Jg%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYcWTVniD-0ny7qC7QyjnUe%2BfFrTsnvHzCC1GwCiea72Jg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> 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+...@chromium.org. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfVFo8RhBT0Yn3ZZ7tyeii%2BSdXEZdJ8Jbe6bhA2QD20tZQ%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfVFo8RhBT0Yn3ZZ7tyeii%2BSdXEZdJ8Jbe6bhA2QD20tZQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- 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/44bc7c29-e4ea-4cb1-a4e1-2508c3e29a3fn%40chromium.org.
