The attached patch adds a LOAD_FLAG_BYPASS_CLASSIFIER load flag, which will do pretty much what it says it will. This is needed by a few bugs (413717, 400731). Since this will allow unchecked urls into the cache, I changed the check; the classifier will only skip cached urls if it's been previously tagged as checked by the classifier.

Comment on attachment 299076 [details] [diff] [review] v1 >+ return (strcmp(tag.get(), "1") == 0); Please use EqualsLiteral() here. Get Christian to OK the cache stuff? I don't recall enough about HTTP to tell whether it's right. Also get him to OK adding a webnav flag for this?

Comment on attachment 299076 [details] [diff] [review] v1 +nsClassifierCallback::CheckEntryTag() maybe this should be named HasBeenClassified() to make it clearer what it does/what the return value means? sr=biesi I wish the webnav/docshell load flags weren't such a mess...

I don't think you meant bug 413717...

asking for approval - This is needed by at least one blocker (400731), and the cache tagging bit is probably a good idea to take anyway.

Comment on attachment 299861 [details] [diff] [review] addressed review comments a1.9+=damons

Checking in base/nsDocShell.cpp; /cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsDocShell.cpp,v <-- nsDocShell.cpp new revision: 1.882; previous revision: 1.881 done Checking in base/nsDocShell.h; /cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsDocShell.h,v <-- nsDocShell.h new revision: 1.220; previous revision: 1.219 done Checking in base/nsDocShellLoadTypes.h; /cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsDocShellLoadTypes.h,v <-- nsDocShellLoadTypes.h new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done Checking in base/nsIDocShell.idl; /cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsIDocShell.idl,v <-- nsIDocShell.idl new revision: 1.96; previous revision: 1.95 done Checking in base/nsIWebNavigation.idl; /cvsroot/mozilla/docshell/base/nsIWebNavigation.idl,v <-- nsIWebNavigation.idl new revision: 1.27; previous revision: 1.26 done

So I just realized that this flag that got added here is outside the range of allowed webnavigation flags, no?