From googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq:
IPC: toyo...@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): toyo...@chromium.org
Reviewer source(s):
toyo...@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. |
// https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ef8vZG-Dzg9f5-gew7-42nHumYe2GvbRMC32AyWmyqs/editIs it possible to use actual explainer link (not Google docs link)?
string? prefetch_activation_beacon_endpoint;https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/prefetch-activation-beacon says the value is <url>. It doesn't seem to align with the test case above? Also, should we use url.mojom.Url instead of string, since string is less strict than url.mojom.Url?
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
bashi-san already pointed out what I noticed. So, let me wait for the next round.
// https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ef8vZG-Dzg9f5-gew7-42nHumYe2GvbRMC32AyWmyqs/editIs it possible to use actual explainer link (not Google docs link)?
Done
string? prefetch_activation_beacon_endpoint;https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/prefetch-activation-beacon says the value is <url>. It doesn't seem to align with the test case above? Also, should we use url.mojom.Url instead of string, since string is less strict than url.mojom.Url?
The naming `<url>` in the explainer is not precise and has been updated. The value in the header should be the relative path to the endpoint. We've also updated the mojo definition to use `url.mojom.Url`.
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
| Code-Review | +1 |
string? prefetch_activation_beacon_endpoint;Jiacheng Guohttps://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/prefetch-activation-beacon says the value is <url>. It doesn't seem to align with the test case above? Also, should we use url.mojom.Url instead of string, since string is less strict than url.mojom.Url?
The naming `<url>` in the explainer is not precise and has been updated. The value in the header should be the relative path to the endpoint. We've also updated the mojo definition to use `url.mojom.Url`.
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
removing me, I don't think I'm a good reviewer for this area, and other experts are already in.
| 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. |