I'll land this after the next branch point next week.
For the delta between the reapply and the update see:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7427180/1..5
All a just nullptr checks so for. Clusterfuzz seemed to do a good job finding issues, so we'll see what else it finds in the reapply.
| 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. |
All the new nullptr checks... are we sure we really should be inside these functions if we have a nullptr?
} else if (Layer() && (RuntimeEnabledFeatures::We'll now do this for the root layer. Any concerns?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +0 |
All the new nullptr checks... are we sure we really should be inside these functions if we have a nullptr?
I think so - an arguable one is `DirtyVisibleContentStatus` - but it also calls `MarkAncestorChainForFlagsUpdate` which has a side-effect on the current layer which i think is needed.
} else if (Layer() && (RuntimeEnabledFeatures::We'll now do this for the root layer. Any concerns?
I don't think so - (can we even change the style for the root layer?).
This part of the change was reverted in:
https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commit/d19611f290f1c793202dacb7ce790c86ed6db9c3
and clusterfuzz seemed ok with it for a few weeks (compared with a few hours for the rest of this change).
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |