if (!base::ValuesEquivalent({{group_expression}}, o.{{group_expression}})) {I think we want to keep the pointer comparison fast path (see `group_expression}}.Get() == o.{{group_expression}}.Get()` from fieldwise_compare):
```
if ({{group_expression}}.Get() != o.{{group_expression}}.Get()) {
if (!{{group_expression}} || !o.{{group_expression}}) {
return ...
}
}
```
return CSSPropertyID::{{field.enum_name}};
{% else %}
return CSSPropertyID::kInvalid;There are several field mismatch, for `is_extra_field` fields. It seems it might be better to define a new dedicated enum.
->InheritedEqualIncludingInheritedVariables(This could be replaced by MismatchedInheritedProperty directly so run the comparison only once (we might need to return optional though)
base::UmaHistogramSparse(Why not UmaHistogramEnumeration?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
if (!base::ValuesEquivalent({{group_expression}}, o.{{group_expression}})) {I think we want to keep the pointer comparison fast path (see `group_expression}}.Get() == o.{{group_expression}}.Get()` from fieldwise_compare):
```
if ({{group_expression}}.Get() != o.{{group_expression}}.Get()) {
if (!{{group_expression}} || !o.{{group_expression}}) {
return ...
}
}
```
Done
return CSSPropertyID::{{field.enum_name}};
{% else %}
return CSSPropertyID::kInvalid;There are several field mismatch, for `is_extra_field` fields. It seems it might be better to define a new dedicated enum.
What do you think about running it like this to start. If we end up getting too much invalid values we can go back and enhance it?
This could be replaced by MismatchedInheritedProperty directly so run the comparison only once (we might need to return optional though)
Done
base::UmaHistogramSparse(Olivier Li Shing Tat-DupuisWhy not UmaHistogramEnumeration?
Done
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |