| Code-Review | +1 |
owners stamping ui/views/widget/desktop_aura/desktop_window_tree_host_platform.cc
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Commit-Queue | +1 |
last_begin_frame_args_ = BeginFrameArgs();Kramer GeOriginal `ExternalBeginFrameSourceMojo` logic is changed if `last_begin_frame_args_` reset gets moved here. I don't think this should be changed.
Done
bool skip_wait_for_frame_sinks = false;Kramer Genit: should avoid double negation here for ease of read. `bool wait_for_frame_sinks = true`
Done
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
+chrome-ipc-reviews@ for services/viz/privileged/mojom/compositing/frame_sink_manager.mojom
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
From googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq:
IPC: dch...@chromium.org
📎 It looks like you’re making a possibly security-sensitive change! 📎 IPC security review isn’t a rubberstamp, so your friendly security reviewer will need a fair amount of context to review your CL effectively. Please review your CL description and code comments to make sure they provide context for someone unfamiliar with your project/area. Pay special attention to where data comes from and which processes it flows between (and their privilege levels). Feel free to point your security reviewer at design docs, bugs, or other links if you can’t reasonably make a self-contained CL description. (Also see https://cbea.ms/git-commit/).
IPC reviewer(s): dch...@chromium.org
Reviewer source(s):
dch...@chromium.org is from context(googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq)
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Mitchell CohenCan you add commit message explaining that ExternalBeginFrameSourceMojo is for headless and AR, it waits for all frame_sinks to act on a BeginFrame. So a non-blocking *Wayland subclass is needed?
Done
void ExternalBeginFrameSourceMojoWayland::IssueExternalBeginFrame(Mitchell Cohenseveral functions are the same as `ExternalBeginFrameSourceMojo::` that you don't need to copy impl here.
Done
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
// wait for all frame sinks.(It might be nice if there's some comment somewhere to help a reader understand when it's useful for this to be `true` vs `false`. In the context of this CL, it's fairly obvious–but I'm not sure if that will always be the case for a reader that comes along later)
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
(It might be nice if there's some comment somewhere to help a reader understand when it's useful for this to be `true` vs `false`. In the context of this CL, it's fairly obvious–but I'm not sure if that will always be the case for a reader that comes along later)
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Code-Review | +1 |
if (!pending_frame_sinks_.empty())nit: should we check (wait_for_frame_sinks_ && !pending_frame_sinks_.empty()) here instead?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
nit: should we check (wait_for_frame_sinks_ && !pending_frame_sinks_.empty()) here instead?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
if (!pending_frame_sinks_.empty())Mitchell Cohennit: should we check (wait_for_frame_sinks_ && !pending_frame_sinks_.empty()) here instead?
Good catch!
Needed to revert this change after all since it allowed frame callbacks to be dispatched before the frame was displayed at all. The goal of the wait param is to control whether to keep waiting for sinks after the display draws.
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
if (!pending_frame_sinks_.empty())Mitchell Cohennit: should we check (wait_for_frame_sinks_ && !pending_frame_sinks_.empty()) here instead?
Mitchell CohenGood catch!
Needed to revert this change after all since it allowed frame callbacks to be dispatched before the frame was displayed at all. The goal of the wait param is to control whether to keep waiting for sinks after the display draws.
I'm confused why this caused headless test to fail.
That aside, can we eliminate the effect of `pending_frame_sinks_` by skipping `insert` and `erase` instead?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
if (!pending_frame_sinks_.empty())Mitchell Cohennit: should we check (wait_for_frame_sinks_ && !pending_frame_sinks_.empty()) here instead?
Mitchell CohenGood catch!
Kramer GeNeeded to revert this change after all since it allowed frame callbacks to be dispatched before the frame was displayed at all. The goal of the wait param is to control whether to keep waiting for sinks after the display draws.
Kramer GeI'm confused why this caused headless test to fail.
That aside, can we eliminate the effect of `pending_frame_sinks_` by skipping `insert` and `erase` instead?
I'm confused why this caused headless test to fail.
Ah I see it was due to `skip_wait_for_frame_sinks_` removed `skip_` but default value is unchanged.
if (!pending_frame_sinks_.empty())Mitchell Cohennit: should we check (wait_for_frame_sinks_ && !pending_frame_sinks_.empty()) here instead?
Mitchell CohenGood catch!
Kramer GeNeeded to revert this change after all since it allowed frame callbacks to be dispatched before the frame was displayed at all. The goal of the wait param is to control whether to keep waiting for sinks after the display draws.
Kramer GeI'm confused why this caused headless test to fail.
That aside, can we eliminate the effect of `pending_frame_sinks_` by skipping `insert` and `erase` instead?
I'm confused why this caused headless test to fail.
Ah I see it was due to `skip_wait_for_frame_sinks_` removed `skip_` but default value is unchanged.
Yes; there were two issues: 1) renaming the boolean accidentally turned this on for headless 2) even when we set the param deliberately , we do not want to send callbacks before the display finishes.