[webkit-reviews] review denied: [Bug 79131] Use V8 completion callback API to assert that V8RecursionScope is on the stack whenever invoking script : [Attachment 134877] Patch

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

Darin Fisher (:fishd, Google) <fishd at chromium.org> has denied Rafael Weinstein
<rafaelw at chromium.org>'s request for review:
Bug 79131: Use V8 completion callback API to assert that V8RecursionScope is on
the stack whenever invoking script
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79131

Attachment 134877: Patch
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=134877&action=review

------- Additional Comments from Darin Fisher (:fishd, Google)
<fishd at chromium.org>
I didn't review all of the WebCore changes in detail.  That'd surely be better
left to someone more familiar with the V8 bindings.


View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=134877&action=review


> Source/WebKit/chromium/public/WebScopedMicrotaskSuppression.h:32
> +#define WebScopedMicrotaskSuppressionn_h

oops

> Source/WebKit/chromium/public/WebScopedMicrotaskSuppression.h:38
> +// This class wraps V8RecursionScope::BypassMicrotaskCheckpoint. Please

Please considering duplicating some of that information here.  Two reasons:

1- People who hack on WebCore are not necessarily likely to know to fixup
comments
in Chromium's WebKit API headers.

2- People who read Chromium's WebKit API headers should not need to look into
WebCore
to understand the API.

> Source/WebKit/chromium/public/WebScopedMicrotaskSuppression.h:42
> +    WEBKIT_EXPORT WebScopedMicrotaskSuppression();

There is a convention of not exporting constructors and destructors through the
API.
Please see WebScopedUserGesture.

> Source/WebKit/chromium/src/WebScopedMicrotaskSuppression.cpp:42
> +    Impl() { }

nit: why bother defining constructor and destructor?