Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-31 Thread Yoav Weiss 
Ok. Feel free to send code reviews my way. (At least for the webexposed
part)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 10:25 Andreu Botella  wrote:

> Hi. The implementation is complete, and the CL just needs some API owner
> to approve the changes in expectations for virtual/webexposed tests. But
> since the branch point for M97 is the 4th, it might be better to wait and
> land it in M98, just in case.
>
> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 8:47:15 PM UTC+2 Joe Medley wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In which version are you planning to ship?
>>
>> Joe
>> Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jme...@google.com |
>> 816-678-7195 <(816)%20678-7195>
>> *If an API's not documented it doesn't exist.*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 9:41 AM Chris Harrelson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> LGTM3
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:18 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas <
>>> re...@igalia.com> wrote:
>>>
 LGTM2

 On 29/10/2021 06:56, Yoav Weiss wrote:
 > LGTM1
 >
 > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andreu Botella
 > mailto:and...@andreubotella.com>> wrote:
 >
 > I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there
 are
 > some because of the failures in
 >
 https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
 > <
 https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
 >,
 > but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems
 like
 > some of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be
 > bugs with the tests rather than with the implementations.
 >
 >
 > OK, as these differences are already exposed, I don't think shipping
 > this significantly increases risk. The fact that they're covered by
 WPTs
 > makes it more likely we'd (eventually) converge on the specified
 behavior.
 >
 >
 > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+2
 > fs...@chromium.org  wrote:
 >
 > This is amazing! :)
 >
 > I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere
 written
 > what are the browser's differences on structured clone
 > algorithms? Is it a spec issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
 >
 > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella
 >  wrote:
 >
 > *Contact emails*
 > and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org,
 > su...@chromium.org
 >
 > *Explainer*
 > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
 > 
 >
 > *Specification*
 > https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning
 > 
 >
 > *Summary*
 > Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm
 > synchronously for cloning and transferring objects within
 a
 > single realm.
 >
 > *Initial public proposal*
 > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
 > 
 > https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414
 > 
 >
 > *Blink component*
 > Blink>Messaging
 > <
 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EMessaging
 >
 >
 >
 > *TAG review*
 > This is just exposing existing browser functionality,
 with a
 > two-line spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to
 discuss
 > architecturally, but I’ll file for review if the community
 > thinks it would help.
 >
 > *TAG review status*
 > Not applicable
 >
 > *Risks*
 >
 > *Interoperability and Compatibility*
 > Low. There are some differences across the browsers’
 > implementations of the structured cloning algorithm, but
 > they are very minor and already present in other APIs that
 > use it.
 >
 > Gecko: Shipped/Shipping
 > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576
 > )
 > Edge: No signal
 > WebKit: Shipped/Shipping
 > (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331
 > )
 >
 > Web developers: Positive
 > (
 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942
 > <
>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-30 Thread Andreu Botella 
Hi. The implementation is complete, and the CL just needs some API owner to 
approve the changes in expectations for virtual/webexposed tests. But since 
the branch point for M97 is the 4th, it might be better to wait and land it 
in M98, just in case.

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 8:47:15 PM UTC+2 Joe Medley wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In which version are you planning to ship?
>
> Joe
> Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jme...@google.com | 
> 816-678-7195 <(816)%20678-7195>
> *If an API's not documented it doesn't exist.*
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 9:41 AM Chris Harrelson  
> wrote:
>
>> LGTM3
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:18 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> LGTM2
>>>
>>> On 29/10/2021 06:56, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>>> > LGTM1
>>> > 
>>> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andreu Botella
>>> > mailto:and...@andreubotella.com>> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are
>>> > some because of the failures in
>>> > 
>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>>> > <
>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>>> >,
>>> > but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems 
>>> like
>>> > some of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be
>>> > bugs with the tests rather than with the implementations.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > OK, as these differences are already exposed, I don't think shipping
>>> > this significantly increases risk. The fact that they're covered by 
>>> WPTs
>>> > makes it more likely we'd (eventually) converge on the specified 
>>> behavior.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+2
>>> > fs...@chromium.org  wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > This is amazing! :)
>>> > 
>>> > I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere 
>>> written
>>> > what are the browser's differences on structured clone
>>> > algorithms? Is it a spec issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
>>> > 
>>> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella
>>> >  wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > *Contact emails*
>>> > and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org,
>>> > su...@chromium.org
>>> > 
>>> > *Explainer*
>>> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > *Specification*
>>> > https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > *Summary*
>>> > Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm
>>> > synchronously for cloning and transferring objects within a
>>> > single realm.
>>> > 
>>> > *Initial public proposal*
>>> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
>>> > 
>>> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > *Blink component*
>>> > Blink>Messaging
>>> > <
>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EMessaging
>>> >
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > *TAG review*
>>> > This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with 
>>> a
>>> > two-line spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss
>>> > architecturally, but I’ll file for review if the community
>>> > thinks it would help.
>>> > 
>>> > *TAG review status*
>>> > Not applicable
>>> > 
>>> > *Risks*
>>> > 
>>> > *Interoperability and Compatibility*
>>> > Low. There are some differences across the browsers’
>>> > implementations of the structured cloning algorithm, but
>>> > they are very minor and already present in other APIs that
>>> > use it.
>>> > 
>>> > Gecko: Shipped/Shipping
>>> > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576
>>> > )
>>> > Edge: No signal
>>> > WebKit: Shipped/Shipping
>>> > (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331
>>> > )
>>> > 
>>> > Web developers: Positive
>>> > (
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942
>>> > <
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942>
>>> > and following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand
>>> > for a built-in deep clone, and while structured clone is 
>>> not
>>> > exactly that

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-29 Thread 'Joe Medley' via blink-dev 
Hi,

In which version are you planning to ship?

Joe
Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jmed...@google.com |
 816-678-7195
*If an API's not documented it doesn't exist.*


On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 9:41 AM Chris Harrelson 
wrote:

> LGTM3
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:18 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas 
> wrote:
>
>> LGTM2
>>
>> On 29/10/2021 06:56, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>> > LGTM1
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andreu Botella
>> > mailto:and...@andreubotella.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are
>> > some because of the failures in
>> >
>> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>> > <
>> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>> >,
>> > but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems like
>> > some of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be
>> > bugs with the tests rather than with the implementations.
>> >
>> >
>> > OK, as these differences are already exposed, I don't think shipping
>> > this significantly increases risk. The fact that they're covered by WPTs
>> > makes it more likely we'd (eventually) converge on the specified
>> behavior.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+2
>> > fs...@chromium.org  wrote:
>> >
>> > This is amazing! :)
>> >
>> > I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written
>> > what are the browser's differences on structured clone
>> > algorithms? Is it a spec issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> > *Contact emails*
>> > and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org,
>> > su...@chromium.org
>> >
>> > *Explainer*
>> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
>> > 
>> >
>> > *Specification*
>> > https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning
>> > 
>> >
>> > *Summary*
>> > Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm
>> > synchronously for cloning and transferring objects within a
>> > single realm.
>> >
>> > *Initial public proposal*
>> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
>> > 
>> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414
>> > 
>> >
>> > *Blink component*
>> > Blink>Messaging
>> > <
>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EMessaging
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *TAG review*
>> > This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a
>> > two-line spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss
>> > architecturally, but I’ll file for review if the community
>> > thinks it would help.
>> >
>> > *TAG review status*
>> > Not applicable
>> >
>> > *Risks*
>> >
>> > *Interoperability and Compatibility*
>> > Low. There are some differences across the browsers’
>> > implementations of the structured cloning algorithm, but
>> > they are very minor and already present in other APIs that
>> > use it.
>> >
>> > Gecko: Shipped/Shipping
>> > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576
>> > )
>> > Edge: No signal
>> > WebKit: Shipped/Shipping
>> > (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331
>> > )
>> >
>> > Web developers: Positive
>> > (
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942
>> > <
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942>
>> > and following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand
>> > for a built-in deep clone, and while structured clone is not
>> > exactly that, it fulfills many of the use cases.
>> >
>> > *Debuggability*
>> > n/a
>> >
>> > *Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
>> > <
>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md
>> >?*
>> > Yes
>> > <
>> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/webappapis/structured-clone?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Requires code in //chrome?*
>> > False
>> >
>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-29 Thread Chris Harrelson 
LGTM3

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:18 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas 
wrote:

> LGTM2
>
> On 29/10/2021 06:56, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> > LGTM1
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andreu Botella
> > mailto:and...@andreubotella.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are
> > some because of the failures in
> >
> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
> > <
> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
> >,
> > but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems like
> > some of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be
> > bugs with the tests rather than with the implementations.
> >
> >
> > OK, as these differences are already exposed, I don't think shipping
> > this significantly increases risk. The fact that they're covered by WPTs
> > makes it more likely we'd (eventually) converge on the specified
> behavior.
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+2
> > fs...@chromium.org  wrote:
> >
> > This is amazing! :)
> >
> > I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written
> > what are the browser's differences on structured clone
> > algorithms? Is it a spec issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella
> >  wrote:
> >
> > *Contact emails*
> > and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org,
> > su...@chromium.org
> >
> > *Explainer*
> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
> > 
> >
> > *Specification*
> > https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning
> > 
> >
> > *Summary*
> > Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm
> > synchronously for cloning and transferring objects within a
> > single realm.
> >
> > *Initial public proposal*
> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
> > 
> > https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414
> > 
> >
> > *Blink component*
> > Blink>Messaging
> > <
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EMessaging
> >
> >
> >
> > *TAG review*
> > This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a
> > two-line spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss
> > architecturally, but I’ll file for review if the community
> > thinks it would help.
> >
> > *TAG review status*
> > Not applicable
> >
> > *Risks*
> >
> > *Interoperability and Compatibility*
> > Low. There are some differences across the browsers’
> > implementations of the structured cloning algorithm, but
> > they are very minor and already present in other APIs that
> > use it.
> >
> > Gecko: Shipped/Shipping
> > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576
> > )
> > Edge: No signal
> > WebKit: Shipped/Shipping
> > (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331
> > )
> >
> > Web developers: Positive
> > (
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942
> > <
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942>
> > and following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand
> > for a built-in deep clone, and while structured clone is not
> > exactly that, it fulfills many of the use cases.
> >
> > *Debuggability*
> > n/a
> >
> > *Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
> > <
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md
> >?*
> > Yes
> > <
> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/webappapis/structured-clone?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
> >
> >
> >
> > *Requires code in //chrome?*
> > False
> >
> > *Tracking bug*
> >
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571 <
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571>
> >
> >
> > *Estimated milestones*
> > No milestones specified
> >
> > *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
> > https://chromestatus.com/feature/5

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-29 Thread Manuel Rego Casasnovas 
LGTM2

On 29/10/2021 06:56, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> LGTM1
> 
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andreu Botella
> mailto:and...@andreubotella.com>> wrote:
> 
> I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are
> some because of the failures in
> 
> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
> 
> ,
> but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems like
> some of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be
> bugs with the tests rather than with the implementations.
> 
> 
> OK, as these differences are already exposed, I don't think shipping
> this significantly increases risk. The fact that they're covered by WPTs
> makes it more likely we'd (eventually) converge on the specified behavior.
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+2
> fs...@chromium.org  wrote:
> 
> This is amazing! :)
> 
> I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written
> what are the browser's differences on structured clone
> algorithms? Is it a spec issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella
>  wrote:
> 
> *Contact emails*
> and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org,
> su...@chromium.org
> 
> *Explainer*
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
> 
> 
> *Specification*
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning
> 
> 
> *Summary*
> Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm
> synchronously for cloning and transferring objects within a
> single realm.
> 
> *Initial public proposal*
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
> 
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414
> 
> 
> *Blink component*
> Blink>Messaging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TAG review*
> This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a
> two-line spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss
> architecturally, but I’ll file for review if the community
> thinks it would help.
> 
> *TAG review status*
> Not applicable
> 
> *Risks*
> 
> *Interoperability and Compatibility*
> Low. There are some differences across the browsers’
> implementations of the structured cloning algorithm, but
> they are very minor and already present in other APIs that
> use it.
> 
> Gecko: Shipped/Shipping
> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576
> )
> Edge: No signal
> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping
> (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331
> )
> 
> Web developers: Positive
> (https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942
> 
> and following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand
> for a built-in deep clone, and while structured clone is not
> exactly that, it fulfills many of the use cases.
> 
> *Debuggability*
> n/a
> 
> *Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
> 
> ?*
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Requires code in //chrome?*
> False
> 
> *Tracking bug*
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571 
> 
> 
> 
> *Estimated milestones*
> No milestones specified
> 
> *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5630001077551104
> 
> 
> *Requesting approval to ship? *
> Yes. This is a relatively small feature which exposes
> existing functionality.
> 
> -- 
> You

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-28 Thread Yoav Weiss 
LGTM1

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andreu Botella 
wrote:

> I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are some
> because of the failures in
> https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned,
> but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems like some
> of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be bugs with
> the tests rather than with the implementations.
>

OK, as these differences are already exposed, I don't think shipping this
significantly increases risk. The fact that they're covered by WPTs makes
it more likely we'd (eventually) converge on the specified behavior.


> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+2 fs...@chromium.org
> wrote:
>
>> This is amazing! :)
>>
>> I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written what
>> are the browser's differences on structured clone algorithms? Is it a spec
>> issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> * Contact emails*
>>> and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org, su...@chromium.org
>>>
>>> *Explainer*
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
>>>
>>> *Specification*
>>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning
>>>
>>> * Summary*
>>> Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm synchronously for
>>> cloning and transferring objects within a single realm.
>>>
>>> * Initial public proposal*
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414
>>>
>>> *Blink component*
>>> Blink>Messaging
>>> 
>>>
>>> * TAG review*
>>> This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a two-line
>>> spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss architecturally, but
>>> I’ll file for review if the community thinks it would help.
>>>
>>> *TAG review status*
>>> Not applicable
>>>
>>> * Risks*
>>>
>>> * Interoperability and Compatibility*
>>> Low. There are some differences across the browsers’ implementations of
>>> the structured cloning algorithm, but they are very minor and already
>>> present in other APIs that use it.
>>>
>>> Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576)
>>> Edge: No signal
>>> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331)
>>>
>>>
>>> Web developers: Positive (
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942 and
>>> following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand for a built-in deep
>>> clone, and while structured clone is not exactly that, it fulfills many of
>>> the use cases.
>>>
>>> * Debuggability*
>>> n/a
>>>
>>> * Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
>>> ?*
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>>
>>> * Requires code in //chrome?*
>>> False
>>>
>>> * Tracking bug*
>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571
>>>
>>> *Estimated milestones*
>>> No milestones specified
>>>
>>> * Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5630001077551104
>>>
>>> *Requesting approval to ship? *
>>> Yes. This is a relatively small feature which exposes existing
>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/e7299674-54df-4f4d-8c30-d922ebf4e47cn%40chromium.org
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> 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/74ab6933-2925-455a-9e24-a95ae08f3cf5n%40chromium.org
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAL5BFfVnABD048Xi6r3J9%2BGwBmYUX6pM1Auqp6MQSuwJUaNejg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-28 Thread Andreu Botella 
I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are some 
because of the failures in 
https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned,
 
but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems like some 
of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be bugs with the 
tests rather than with the implementations.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+2 fs...@chromium.org 
wrote:

> This is amazing! :)
>
> I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written what 
> are the browser's differences on structured clone algorithms? Is it a spec 
> issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella  
> wrote:
>
>> * Contact emails*
>> and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org, su...@chromium.org 
>>
>> *Explainer*
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 
>>
>> *Specification*
>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning 
>>
>> * Summary*
>> Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm synchronously for 
>> cloning and transferring objects within a single realm. 
>>
>> * Initial public proposal*
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414 
>>
>> *Blink component*
>> Blink>Messaging 
>> 
>>  
>>
>> * TAG review*
>> This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a two-line 
>> spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss architecturally, but 
>> I’ll file for review if the community thinks it would help. 
>>
>> *TAG review status*
>> Not applicable 
>>
>> * Risks*
>>
>> * Interoperability and Compatibility*
>> Low. There are some differences across the browsers’ implementations of 
>> the structured cloning algorithm, but they are very minor and already 
>> present in other APIs that use it. 
>>
>> Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576) 
>> Edge: No signal 
>> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331) 
>>
>>
>> Web developers: Positive (
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942 and 
>> following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand for a built-in deep 
>> clone, and while structured clone is not exactly that, it fulfills many of 
>> the use cases. 
>>
>> * Debuggability*
>> n/a 
>>
>> * Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
>> ?*
>> Yes 
>> 
>>  
>>
>> * Requires code in //chrome?*
>> False 
>>
>> * Tracking bug*
>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571 
>>
>> *Estimated milestones*
>> No milestones specified 
>>
>> * Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5630001077551104 
>>
>> *Requesting approval to ship? *
>> Yes. This is a relatively small feature which exposes existing 
>> functionality.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/e7299674-54df-4f4d-8c30-d922ebf4e47cn%40chromium.org
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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/74ab6933-2925-455a-9e24-a95ae08f3cf5n%40chromium.org.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-28 Thread Andreu Botella 
About the differences in the structured clone algorithm across 
implementations: I don't think those are listed anywhere. I know there are 
some because of the failures in 
https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned,
 
but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems like some 
of the failures in the shared-array-buffer folder seem to be bugs with the 
tests rather than with the implementations.

For the record, I recently fixed in 
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3229544 one of 
Chromium's failures, where it was throwing a TypeError rather than a 
DataCloneException in one particular case. And it seems like the RegExp 
failures in Safari are fixed in the WebKit trunk / master branch.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:56:15 PM UTC+2 yoav...@chromium.org 
wrote:

> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+2 jo...@igalia.com wrote:
>
>> This would be a great addition. Node.js also has been shipping this since 
>> v17.0.0 .
>> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 5:12:32 AM UTC+8 fs...@chromium.org 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is amazing! :)
>>>
>>> I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written what 
>>> are the browser's differences on structured clone algorithms? Is it a spec 
>>> issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 * Contact emails*
 and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org, su...@chromium.org 

>>>
 *Explainer*
 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 

 *Specification*
 https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning 

 * Summary*
 Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm synchronously for 
 cloning and transferring objects within a single realm. 

 * Initial public proposal*
 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 
 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414 

 *Blink component*
 Blink>Messaging 
 
  

 * TAG review*
 This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a two-line 
 spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss architecturally, but 
 I’ll file for review if the community thinks it would help.
>>>
>>>
> I agree this doesn't need a TAG review, but for other reasons.
> This change has landed in HTML and is shipped in 2 engines, so there's no 
> need for a TAG review for that reason.
>  
>
>>

 *TAG review status*
 Not applicable 

 * Risks*

 * Interoperability and Compatibility*
 Low. There are some differences across the browsers’ implementations of 
 the structured cloning algorithm, but they are very minor and already 
 present in other APIs that use it.
>>>
>>>
> Are there tests that highlight those differences?
>  
>
>>

 Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (
 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576) 
 Edge: No signal 
 WebKit: Shipped/Shipping (
 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331) 
>>>
>>>

 Web developers: Positive (
 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942 and 
 following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand for a built-in deep 
 clone, and while structured clone is not exactly that, it fulfills many of 
 the use cases. 

 * Debuggability*
 n/a 

 * Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
 ?*
 Yes 
 
  

 * Requires code in //chrome?*
 False 

 * Tracking bug*
 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571 

 *Estimated milestones*
 No milestones specified 

 * Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
 https://chromestatus.com/feature/5630001077551104 

 *Requesting approval to ship? *
 Yes. This is a relatively small feature which exposes existing 
 functionality.

 -- 
 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/e7299674-54df-4f4d-8c30-d922ebf4e47cn%40chromium.org
  
 
 .

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group an

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-28 Thread Yoav Weiss 


On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+2 jo...@igalia.com wrote:

> This would be a great addition. Node.js also has been shipping this since 
> v17.0.0 .
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 5:12:32 AM UTC+8 fs...@chromium.org 
> wrote:
>
>> This is amazing! :)
>>
>> I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written what 
>> are the browser's differences on structured clone algorithms? Is it a spec 
>> issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> * Contact emails*
>>> and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org, su...@chromium.org 
>>>
>>
>>> *Explainer*
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 
>>>
>>> *Specification*
>>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning 
>>>
>>> * Summary*
>>> Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm synchronously for 
>>> cloning and transferring objects within a single realm. 
>>>
>>> * Initial public proposal*
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414 
>>>
>>> *Blink component*
>>> Blink>Messaging 
>>> 
>>>  
>>>
>>> * TAG review*
>>> This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a two-line 
>>> spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss architecturally, but 
>>> I’ll file for review if the community thinks it would help.
>>
>>
I agree this doesn't need a TAG review, but for other reasons.
This change has landed in HTML and is shipped in 2 engines, so there's no 
need for a TAG review for that reason.
 

>
>>>
>>> *TAG review status*
>>> Not applicable 
>>>
>>> * Risks*
>>>
>>> * Interoperability and Compatibility*
>>> Low. There are some differences across the browsers’ implementations of 
>>> the structured cloning algorithm, but they are very minor and already 
>>> present in other APIs that use it.
>>
>>
Are there tests that highlight those differences?
 

>
>>>
>>> Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576) 
>>> Edge: No signal 
>>> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331
>>> ) 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Web developers: Positive (
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942 and 
>>> following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand for a built-in deep 
>>> clone, and while structured clone is not exactly that, it fulfills many of 
>>> the use cases. 
>>>
>>> * Debuggability*
>>> n/a 
>>>
>>> * Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
>>> ?*
>>> Yes 
>>> 
>>>  
>>>
>>> * Requires code in //chrome?*
>>> False 
>>>
>>> * Tracking bug*
>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571 
>>>
>>> *Estimated milestones*
>>> No milestones specified 
>>>
>>> * Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5630001077551104 
>>>
>>> *Requesting approval to ship? *
>>> Yes. This is a relatively small feature which exposes existing 
>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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/e7299674-54df-4f4d-8c30-d922ebf4e47cn%40chromium.org
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>

-- 
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/8b0b0a76-3bca-4640-bfb6-5e2010b485bcn%40chromium.org.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-28 Thread Joyee Cheung 
This would be a great addition. Node.js also has been shipping this since 
v17.0.0 .
On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 5:12:32 AM UTC+8 fs...@chromium.org wrote:

> This is amazing! :)
>
> I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written what 
> are the browser's differences on structured clone algorithms? Is it a spec 
> issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella  
> wrote:
>
>> * Contact emails*
>> and...@andreubotella.com, jbr...@chromium.org, su...@chromium.org 
>>
>> *Explainer*
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 
>>
>> *Specification*
>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning 
>>
>> * Summary*
>> Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm synchronously for 
>> cloning and transferring objects within a single realm. 
>>
>> * Initial public proposal*
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793 
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414 
>>
>> *Blink component*
>> Blink>Messaging 
>> 
>>  
>>
>> * TAG review*
>> This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a two-line 
>> spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss architecturally, but 
>> I’ll file for review if the community thinks it would help. 
>>
>> *TAG review status*
>> Not applicable 
>>
>> * Risks*
>>
>> * Interoperability and Compatibility*
>> Low. There are some differences across the browsers’ implementations of 
>> the structured cloning algorithm, but they are very minor and already 
>> present in other APIs that use it. 
>>
>> Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576) 
>> Edge: No signal 
>> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331) 
>>
>>
>> Web developers: Positive (
>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942 and 
>> following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand for a built-in deep 
>> clone, and while structured clone is not exactly that, it fulfills many of 
>> the use cases. 
>>
>> * Debuggability*
>> n/a 
>>
>> * Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
>> ?*
>> Yes 
>> 
>>  
>>
>> * Requires code in //chrome?*
>> False 
>>
>> * Tracking bug*
>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571 
>>
>> *Estimated milestones*
>> No milestones specified 
>>
>> * Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5630001077551104 
>>
>> *Requesting approval to ship? *
>> Yes. This is a relatively small feature which exposes existing 
>> functionality.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/e7299674-54df-4f4d-8c30-d922ebf4e47cn%40chromium.org
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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/e3668dd8-59c0-4aea-8126-643512f61085n%40chromium.org.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

2021-10-27 Thread Fernando Serboncini 
This is amazing! :)

I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written what
are the browser's differences on structured clone algorithms? Is it a spec
issue? Could we add WPT tests for it?

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Andreu Botella 
wrote:

> * Contact emails*
> and...@andreubotella.com, jbro...@chromium.org, su...@chromium.org
>
> *Explainer*
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
>
> *Specification*
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#structured-cloning
>
> * Summary*
> Enables using the HTML structured clone algorithm synchronously for
> cloning and transferring objects within a single realm.
>
> * Initial public proposal*
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/793
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414
>
> *Blink component*
> Blink>Messaging
> 
>
> * TAG review*
> This is just exposing existing browser functionality, with a two-line
> spec. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to discuss architecturally, but
> I’ll file for review if the community thinks it would help.
>
> *TAG review status*
> Not applicable
>
> * Risks*
>
> * Interoperability and Compatibility*
> Low. There are some differences across the browsers’ implementations of
> the structured cloning algorithm, but they are very minor and already
> present in other APIs that use it.
>
> Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1722576)
> Edge: No signal
> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228331)
>
> Web developers: Positive (
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3414#issuecomment-854051942 and
> following comments). There seems to be a lot of demand for a built-in deep
> clone, and while structured clone is not exactly that, it fulfills many of
> the use cases.
>
> * Debuggability*
> n/a
>
> * Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
> ?*
> Yes
> 
>
> * Requires code in //chrome?*
> False
>
> * Tracking bug*
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233571
>
> *Estimated milestones*
> No milestones specified
>
> * Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5630001077551104
>
> *Requesting approval to ship? *
> Yes. This is a relatively small feature which exposes existing
> functionality.
>
> --
> 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/e7299674-54df-4f4d-8c30-d922ebf4e47cn%40chromium.org
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CADp2-T8MnDX0_S%3DMy1bFSzHEMgx2MJt20ptWuG9GyOKbR%3Dt2OA%40mail.gmail.com.