| Code-Review | +1 |
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
- Disabled in binary by default in M143
- Code removal in M144 (next branch)Kevin GraneyWas there an intent for this / is there a feature in chrome status we can link to?
mmenkehttps://chromestatus.com/feature/5189079788683264
More context in these threads:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WnIy9TTDXpk/m/66Xio4YGDAAJ
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/63u-0KmBG4w/m/nhIsSbLfAwAJ
Thanks! Guess this was always considered an experiment and nor a shipped feature. Could you mention that in the CL description?
Bug: 447619585Kevin GraneyThis is a public, web-exposed feature. Seems like there should be a public bug for this work.
mmenkeThe bug has a combination of Finch and public CLs on it. Is it typical to include Finch CLs on public bugs?
I'm not really sure what the best practice is, now-a-days. Others may have better suggestions.
Historically, we haven't linked internal CLs monorail (which they didn't support linking to, anyways). We did often have a private launch bug for a feature that dealt with permissions and then a release public bug we linked CLs to. I guess launches don't have bugs anymore, but may still be a useful model. Alternatively, monorail bugs used to not even support linking internal CLs, so could refer to public bugs in private CLs without linking them.
All that having been said, I'm certainly not losing sleep over Finch CLs linking public bugs, but does seem like probably not a great thing to do, though I still think it's better than public CLs linking private bugs.
context->set_cookie_deprecation_label(*cookie_deprecation_label_);Kevin GraneyThis CL does not remove URLRequestContext::cookie_deprecation_label(). Is that deliberate? The CL description doesn't mention it at all.
mmenkeNo, that was an oversight, thanks. Do you mind if I remove that code as a follow-up? (This CL is becoming quite large and unwieldy.)
I'd be fine with that, but looks like you already expanded the CL to remove that code?
| Code-Review | +1 |