[a11y] Prototype for improving the way we identify clickable nodes.Carlos Marcelo Barrera NolascoPlease revise this title (it's likely no longer a prototype). Also, in the below description, add a little more detail and a link to the design.
Done
[a11y] Prototype for improving the way we identify clickable nodes.Carlos Marcelo Barrera NolascoPlease revise this title (it's likely no longer a prototype). Also, in the below description, add a little more detail and a link to the design.
Done
// TODO: Check if AccessibilityEvent.CONTENT_CHANGE_TYPE_UNDEFINED is the right type toCarlos Marcelo Barrera Nolasconit: TODO(accessibility): ...
Done
bool use_layout_based_action_ = false;Carlos Marcelo Barrera Nolasconit: may help to explain what this means briefly e.g.
// When true, actions may use more expensive computations e.g. DefaultActionVerb::kClickInHitTest.Also, we may want to name it something more like
bool use_layout_based_actions_
Done
// Mark this node dirty.Carlos Marcelo Barrera Nolasconit: remove this comment (it's superfluous).
Done
case ax::mojom::DefaultActionVerb::kClickInHitTest:Carlos Marcelo Barrera NolascoAs discussed offline, we have a couple of choices for this and the below case. I think I prefer just NOTREACHED here and returning an empty string.
Done
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
if (ContentFeatureMap.isEnabled(ContentFeatureList.ACCESSIBILITY_DEPRECATE_TYPE_ANNOUNCE)) {Nit: I have always tried to avoid nesting. Is it a god idea to have early returns to avoid nesting code? I mean, if the first if is false, we do an early return and then the same for the 2nd if.
CommandEventType action = html_element->GetCommandEventType(What is our policy for handling this, are we allowed to either write a method here or in the CommandEventType that is something like isCommandForOrShowsPopover()?
// Mark this node dirty.Is it ok to remove this comment?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
if (ContentFeatureMap.isEnabled(ContentFeatureList.ACCESSIBILITY_DEPRECATE_TYPE_ANNOUNCE)) {Nit: I have always tried to avoid nesting. Is it a god idea to have early returns to avoid nesting code? I mean, if the first if is false, we do an early return and then the same for the 2nd if.
This code is out of scope of the current change.
Carlos Marcelo Barrera NolascoIs this change necessary?
Good catch, was a misclick.
CommandEventType action = html_element->GetCommandEventType(What is our policy for handling this, are we allowed to either write a method here or in the CommandEventType that is something like isCommandForOrShowsPopover()?
This line is out of the scope of the current CL
// Mark this node dirty.Is it ok to remove this comment?
It is. In the previous review I was asked to remove it.
| 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. |
From googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq:
IPC: joenot...@google.com, na...@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): joenot...@google.com, na...@chromium.org
Reviewer source(s):
joenot...@google.com is from context(googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq)
| 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. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
From googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq:
IPC: joenot...@google.com, na...@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): joenot...@google.com, na...@chromium.org
Reviewer source(s):
joenot...@google.com is from context(googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq)
Design doc: http://goto.google.com/chrome-request-layout-based-actionsnit: we avoid using go links in change descriptions.
auto default_action_verb = GetData().GetDefaultActionVerb();nit: const
// TODO(accessibility): Check if AccessibilityEvent.CONTENT_CHANGE_TYPE_UNDEFINED isnit: please file as crbug.com/xxx and with an appropriate bug instead of just todo(accessibility)
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Removing myself as all the changes were already covered.
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
IPC bits LGTM
| Code-Review | +1 |
Design doc: http://goto.google.com/chrome-request-layout-based-actionsnit: we avoid using go links in change descriptions.
Done
auto default_action_verb = GetData().GetDefaultActionVerb();nit: const
Done
// TODO(accessibility): Check if AccessibilityEvent.CONTENT_CHANGE_TYPE_UNDEFINED isnit: please file as crbug.com/xxx and with an appropriate bug instead of just todo(accessibility)
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. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Code-Review | +1 |
[a11y] New API for requesting layout based clickability.
This CL introduces a more accurate layout-based computation of
clickability, reducing the number of elements considered clickable.
Since this calculation is resource-expensive, a new key is introduced
that is used on-demand within the `requestExtraData` method in the
Android Accessibility Framework, so that any service can request this
information when strictly necessary.
Bug: 443280446
Design doc: http://goto.google.com/chrome-request-layout-based-actions
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |