| Commit-Queue | +1 |
| 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. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
ptal!
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
content::EvalJs(GetActiveWebContents(), script);might be worth pulling into a helper?
options.fre_override = glic::mojom::FreOverride::kTrustFirstInline;are we sure we want this override in Chrome client code?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
content::EvalJs(GetActiveWebContents(), script);might be worth pulling into a helper?
Done
options.fre_override = glic::mojom::FreOverride::kTrustFirstInline;are we sure we want this override in Chrome client code?
True. it would be better and more flexibly handled web side. I also removed the tests because they weren't able to test the fre anyways and were redundant smoke tests.
| 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. |
hi Andrea which files do you want me to take a look at? I don't think I'm listed as an OWNER for anything here
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Thanks! LGTM with just a few nits for making things a bit easier to understand through the comments.
// fetching the prompt from the server and proceed directly.nit: add `, passing nullopt for the prompt.` or something similar.
extensions::api::glic_private::ErrorCode::kNone, std::nullopt));nit: a `/*prompt=*/` would make this call a lot clearer.
// The prompt ID to lookup from Chrome.nit: add `, required unless called from the promotion page.`
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
nit: add `, passing nullopt for the prompt.` or something similar.
Done
extensions::api::glic_private::ErrorCode::kNone, std::nullopt));nit: a `/*prompt=*/` would make this call a lot clearer.
Done
nit: add `, required unless called from the promotion page.`
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
if (is_valid_source &&this name is a little bit odd - should it be source_requires_google_webpage_access or similar? I am worried about adding all sorts of little corner cases to the logic for ACL type of changes.
Should we put this into the switch directly?
if (!details.promptId &&
details.invocationSource !== 'promotion-page') {
throw new Error('missing promptId');
}I don't think we should duplicate this logic in the extension and in c++, we should pick a layer to enforce this and just do it there.
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Commit-Queue | +1 |
if (is_valid_source &&this name is a little bit odd - should it be source_requires_google_webpage_access or similar? I am worried about adding all sorts of little corner cases to the logic for ACL type of changes.
Should we put this into the switch directly?
This is ok as a followup.
if (!details.promptId &&
details.invocationSource !== 'promotion-page') {
throw new Error('missing promptId');
}I don't think we should duplicate this logic in the extension and in c++, we should pick a layer to enforce this and just do it there.
This is okay as a followup.
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Add promotion-page invocation source to glicPrivate API
This change adds the "promotion-page" invocation source to the
glicPrivate API.
Guarded by the ApiGlicAccessFromGoogleWebpage feature flag.
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |