Thanks for this change. It mostly looks good. A few comments about other opportunities for renaming.
internal terminology with navigator.storage.persist() and improve
Should we also update the UsageCounters for these APIs to use Persistent vs. Durable.
The enum is defined here:
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/public/mojom/use_counter/metrics/web_feature.mojom;drc=e1494a7e19155f597a5ff078a42bdefbca492208;l=900-902
And persisted to logs here:
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:tools/metrics/histograms/metadata/blink/enums.xml;drc=af140c76c416302ecadb5e7cf3f989d6293ba5ec;l=1683-1685
// Once user clears site setting data for `origins`, the Durable storage bit
Persistent?
async function checkPermissionUsingPermissionApi() {
Thanks for renaming this file. Would `persistent-storage-permissions.html` be an appropriate name based off the browser test that uses this file and the contents of this file?
bool CookieSettings::IsStorageDurable(const GURL& origin) const {
nit: IsStoragePersistent?
Would also suggest Find and Replacing other occurances of `IsStorageDurable`.
persistentStorage
Flagging for follow up with directory OWNERS.
Would this have repercussions for clients of this protocol? E.g. third_party/devtools_front_end has usage of durableStorage. Should those usages be updated too? Or should we avoid updating this entry?
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
internal terminology with navigator.storage.persist() and improve
Should we also update the UsageCounters for these APIs to use Persistent vs. Durable.
The enum is defined here:
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/public/mojom/use_counter/metrics/web_feature.mojom;drc=e1494a7e19155f597a5ff078a42bdefbca492208;l=900-902And persisted to logs here:
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:tools/metrics/histograms/metadata/blink/enums.xml;drc=af140c76c416302ecadb5e7cf3f989d6293ba5ec;l=1683-1685
Done
// Once user clears site setting data for `origins`, the Durable storage bit
Xiaohan ZhaoPersistent?
Done
async function checkPermissionUsingPermissionApi() {
Thanks for renaming this file. Would `persistent-storage-permissions.html` be an appropriate name based off the browser test that uses this file and the contents of this file?
Done
bool CookieSettings::IsStorageDurable(const GURL& origin) const {
nit: IsStoragePersistent?
Would also suggest Find and Replacing other occurances of `IsStorageDurable`.
Do we also need to update the `durable_` member name as well as the `AddDurable` method's name in this class? https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:storage/browser/test/mock_special_storage_policy.h;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=42?gsn=AddDurable&gs=KYTHE%3A%2F%2Fkythe%3A%2F%2Fchromium.googlesource.com%2Fcodesearch%2Fchromium%2Fsrc%2F%2Fmain%3Flang%3Dc%252B%252B%3Fpath%3Dstorage%2Fbrowser%2Ftest%2Fmock_special_storage_policy.h%23t9qdr0qJnEgP7W56g22hgQUa_3QhqdEqRzZZPosllsg
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Code-Review | +1 |
LGTM %ing the question about updates in the devtools_protocol dir. Thanks!
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Hi folks, this is a rename-only CL -- changed `DURABLE_STORAGE` to `PERSISTENT_STORAGE`.
Adding OWNERS for relevant files/directories:
Thanks!
persistentStorage
Flagging for follow up with directory OWNERS.
Would this have repercussions for clients of this protocol? E.g. third_party/devtools_front_end has usage of durableStorage. Should those usages be updated too? Or should we avoid updating this entry?
This change is related to the change in [content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=237?q=PermissionTypeEnum%20-path:out&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc)
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Code-Review | +1 |
LGTM for stuff in chrome/browser (appears to be all straight-up rename), but I am also concerned about the rename and how it will affect any third-party dependents. Please resolve that conversation before submitting.
Hi folks, this is a rename-only CL -- changed `DURABLE_STORAGE` to `PERSISTENT_STORAGE`.
Adding OWNERS for relevant files/directories:
Thanks!
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. |
persistentStorage
Xiaohan ZhaoFlagging for follow up with directory OWNERS.
Would this have repercussions for clients of this protocol? E.g. third_party/devtools_front_end has usage of durableStorage. Should those usages be updated too? Or should we avoid updating this entry?
This change is related to the change in [content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=237?q=PermissionTypeEnum%20-path:out&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc)
Hi Kent @tk...@chromium.org, could you please give us suggestions on clients side updates? Thanks!
persistentStorage
Xiaohan ZhaoFlagging for follow up with directory OWNERS.
Would this have repercussions for clients of this protocol? E.g. third_party/devtools_front_end has usage of durableStorage. Should those usages be updated too? Or should we avoid updating this entry?
Xiaohan ZhaoThis change is related to the change in [content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=237?q=PermissionTypeEnum%20-path:out&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc)
Hi Kent @tk...@chromium.org, could you please give us suggestions on clients side updates? Thanks!
I'm not familiar with DevTools protocol. Can you ask devtools_protocol/OWNERS ?
// Grant if requesting_origin is bookmarked.
nit: could you remove this incorrect comment while you're here?
(I assume this was correct at one point, but the decision matrix is a lot more complicated now, and it wasn't updated, nor worth updating IMO)
// ContentSettingPermissionContextBase implementation.
nit: most idiomatic and concise style is simply:
`// ContentSettingsPermissionContextBase:`
return "PersistentStorage";
this appears to be used to construct a number of different histogram names, such as "Permissions.Action.PersistentStorage.CrossOriginFrame", and therefore we shouldn't change it.
kPersistentStorageEstimate = 1371,
I'm unsure about whether we're allowed to rename this. My guess is yes, but need @dch...@chromium.org (closest OWNER) or someone to confirm.
If we are allowed, I would say they should be called
```
kStorageManagerPersist
kStorageManagerPersisted
kStorageManagerEstimate
```
since they correlate to [this interface](https://storage.spec.whatwg.org/#storagemanager)
case PermissionName::PERSISTENT_STORAGE:
return "persistent_storage";
unfortunately this is exposed to the web via [this interface](https://w3c.github.io/permissions/#permissionstatus-interface) so even though the current name is no-good-very-bad-awful, we can't simply change it.
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
case PermissionName::PERSISTENT_STORAGE:
return "persistent_storage";
unfortunately this is exposed to the web via [this interface](https://w3c.github.io/permissions/#permissionstatus-interface) so even though the current name is no-good-very-bad-awful, we can't simply change it.
(and by "it" I mean the string being returned)
kPersistentStorageEstimate = 1371,
I'm unsure about whether we're allowed to rename this. My guess is yes, but need @dch...@chromium.org (closest OWNER) or someone to confirm.
If we are allowed, I would say they should be called
```
kStorageManagerPersist
kStorageManagerPersisted
kStorageManagerEstimate
```since they correlate to [this interface](https://storage.spec.whatwg.org/#storagemanager)
It should be OK to rename them as long as the values are preserved. If it isn't OK... well, that's something that tooling somewhere should have caught. I'll defer to @evan...@microsoft.com on the naming.
(I've already LGTMed one other CL renaming things so :)
kPersistentStorageEstimate = 1371,
Daniel ChengI'm unsure about whether we're allowed to rename this. My guess is yes, but need @dch...@chromium.org (closest OWNER) or someone to confirm.
If we are allowed, I would say they should be called
```
kStorageManagerPersist
kStorageManagerPersisted
kStorageManagerEstimate
```since they correlate to [this interface](https://storage.spec.whatwg.org/#storagemanager)
It should be OK to rename them as long as the values are preserved. If it isn't OK... well, that's something that tooling somewhere should have caught. I'll defer to @evan...@microsoft.com on the naming.
(I've already LGTMed one other CL renaming things so :)
great, thanks! created https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6658778 to make it clearer
persistentStorage
Xiaohan ZhaoFlagging for follow up with directory OWNERS.
Would this have repercussions for clients of this protocol? E.g. third_party/devtools_front_end has usage of durableStorage. Should those usages be updated too? Or should we avoid updating this entry?
Xiaohan ZhaoThis change is related to the change in [content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=237?q=PermissionTypeEnum%20-path:out&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc)
Kent TamuraHi Kent @tk...@chromium.org, could you please give us suggestions on clients side updates? Thanks!
I'm not familiar with DevTools protocol. Can you ask devtools_protocol/OWNERS ?
Got it! Looping in Alex @alexr...@chromium.org for clarification, thanks!
Code-Review | +1 |
persistentStorage
Xiaohan ZhaoFlagging for follow up with directory OWNERS.
Would this have repercussions for clients of this protocol? E.g. third_party/devtools_front_end has usage of durableStorage. Should those usages be updated too? Or should we avoid updating this entry?
Xiaohan ZhaoThis change is related to the change in [content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/devtools/protocol/browser_handler.cc;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=237?q=PermissionTypeEnum%20-path:out&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc)
Kent TamuraHi Kent @tk...@chromium.org, could you please give us suggestions on clients side updates? Thanks!
Xiaohan ZhaoI'm not familiar with DevTools protocol. Can you ask devtools_protocol/OWNERS ?
Got it! Looping in Alex @alexr...@chromium.org for clarification, thanks!
I think the change would not affect the DevTools frontend but might affect WebDriver(ChromeDriver) and Puppeteer implementations. cc @ale...@chromium.org
Since the type is marked as experimental, I think it is fine to make this change but the downstream projects will need to make adjustments.
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Code-Review | +1 |
//android_webview/ LGTM
please ping once the CL is ready to land
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |