[webkit-reviews] review denied: [Bug 40781] Web Inspector: show actual breakpoint position in UI. : [Attachment 59002] Proposed patch.

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

Pavel Feldman <pfeldman at chromium.org> has denied Pavel Podivilov
<podivilov at chromium.org>'s request for review:
Bug 40781: Web Inspector: show actual breakpoint position in UI.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40781

Attachment 59002: Proposed patch.
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=59002&action=review

------- Additional Comments from Pavel Feldman <pfeldman at chromium.org>
WebCore/ChangeLog:5
 +	    Web Inspector: show actual breakpoint position in UI.
Could you please provide more details on the scenario in the ChangeLog?

WebCore/ChangeLog:9
 +	    No new tests. (OOPS!)
Remove this line (or add tests!)

WebCore/bindings/js/ScriptDebugServer.cpp:141
 +  bool ScriptDebugServer::setBreakpoint(const String& sourceID,
ScriptBreakpoint breakpoint, int* lineNumber)
I don't like the fact that lineNumber is [inout] here. We should only use input
or output parameters. I would return int instead of bool with actual line. -1
could indicate unsuccessful attempt. r- is for this.

WebCore/inspector/front-end/BreakpointManager.js:99
 +	_saveBreakpointOnBackend: function(breakpoint, callback)
Every time I look at the method name, I find it confusing. Lets rename to
_setBreakpointOnBackend ?

WebCore/inspector/front-end/BreakpointManager.js:110
 +	_didSetBreakpoint: function(breakpoint, success, line)
I think this needs to be a local function in _saveBreakpointOnBackend defined
as

function didSetBreakpoint()
{
...
}

I see that you don't want to call it for the one-timers, but it makes the
overall logic more confusing. In fact, I would probably use same code for
one-time-breakpoints and make them show up in the UI (probably using a bit
different rendering).