Closed Bug 1027734 Opened 10 years ago Closed 9 years ago

Convert mozPay to WebIDL

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Device Interfaces, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
DOM: Device Interfaces
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
mozilla47
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
firefox47 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: khuey, Assigned: peterv)

References

(Depends on 1 open bug)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 2 obsolete files)

v2
(deleted), patch
bzbarsky
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
We should move mozPay to use WebIDL rather than the Javascript-navigator-property stuff and JS implemented class info. ferjm, could you take this?
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
Note that because navigator.mozPay is a function, we either need to find a solution for bug 986455 or implement at least part of it in C++.
Depends on: 986455
I'm afraid that I won't be able to take this at least until the 2.0 peak is gone. Leaving the ni? anyway so I don't forget about this.
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
How about now? The current mechanism that this API is using is going away soonish.
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
Assignee: nobody → ferjmoreno
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
Attached patch Untested WIP (obsolete) (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Assignee: ferjmoreno → peterv
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attached patch v1 (obsolete) (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Need to figure out why the tests don't work yet.
Attachment #8474215 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached patch v2 (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Attachment #8711843 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8713728 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 8713728 [details] [diff] [review] v2 >+++ b/dom/webidl/Navigator.webidl >+ // The 'jwts' parameter can be either a single DOMString or an array of >+ // DOMStrings. Sure would be nice to make it a (DOMString or sequence<DOMString>) or something, but then talking to the back end would be a tad more annoying. On the other hand, it wouldn't involve chrome poking at content arrays... r=me as-is, but this might be worth a followup.
Attachment #8713728 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky [:bz] from comment #7) > Sure would be nice to make it a (DOMString or sequence<DOMString>) or > something, but then talking to the back end would be a tad more annoying. > On the other hand, it wouldn't involve chrome poking at content arrays... I thought about that, but would that do what we want if someone passes in a string? I thought it would end up being converted to a sequence because String has an @@iterator and conversion to sequence is an earlier step than conversion to string in http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-union.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
I guess I should have said "... passes in a String object". Maybe we don't care about that case.
I suspect we don't care about the String object case. But as I said, this should be a followup if we do it at all. We should certainly not hold up landing this over the DOMString union issue.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1f5aaf208c71
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
status-firefox47: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla47
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: