[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 168230] [GTK] Update cookie manager API to properly work with ephemeral sessions

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168230

--- Comment #4 from Carlos Garcia Campos <cgarcia at igalia.com> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Comment on attachment 301345 [details]
> Patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=301345&action=review
> 
> It looks mostly good, but I'd like to review this one again after you answer
> my questions about why you used the weak pointer, which I hope was just a
> mistake.
> 
> > Source/WebCore/platform/network/soup/CookieJarSoup.cpp:217
> > +    // FIXME: Add support for deleting cookies modified since the given timestamp. It should probably be added to libsoup.
> > +    if (timestamp == std::chrono::system_clock::from_time_t(0))
> > +        deleteAllCookies(session);
> 
> Are you planning to fix this soon? I don't think we should proceed with
> these API changes if the API does not work properly. At least add a runtime
> warning using g_warning().

No, I don't have time, I'll add the warning.

> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:40
> > + * The WebKitCookieManager defines how to setup and handle cookies.
> 
> setup (noun) -> set up (verb)
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:43
> >   * store cookies, with webkit_cookie_manager_set_persistent_storage(),
> 
> Remove the comma
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:144
> > +    g_object_add_weak_pointer(G_OBJECT(dataManager), reinterpret_cast<void**>(&manager->priv->dataManager));
> 
> Why is the weak pointer needed? I would expect WebKitCookieManager to be
> owned by the WebKitWebsiteDataManager, so WebKitWebsiteDataManager would
> keep a ref to ensure the WebKitCookieManager is never destroyed first. Is
> there some really good reason you don't do that? I think it should be a
> normal raw pointer instead.

The cookie manager can't be created by the user, it's always created and owned by the website data manager. However, nothing prevents the user from taking a ref to the returned cookie manager. It's a programmer error to use the cookie manager after the data manager is destroyed, that's why all methods are protected with g_return_if_fail(WEBKIT_IS_WEBSITE_DATA_MANAGER(manager->priv->dataManager)). I don't want to take a reference to the data manager. Maybe it isn't worth it just to handle a corner case, so I can simply remove the weak point and use a plan pointer. Users will get a crash sooner or layer in both cases I'm afraid.

> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:165
> >   * By default, @cookie_manager doesn't store the cookies persistenly, so you need to call this
> 
> Preexisting problem, but let's fix it now: persistenly -> persistently
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:176
> > +    for (auto* processPool : webkitWebsiteDataManagerGetProcessPools(manager->priv->dataManager)) {
> 
> This is a big problem. Either manager->priv->dataManager can be legitimately
> null here, or you should not have used a weak pointer.
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:197
> > +    g_return_if_fail(WEBKIT_IS_WEBSITE_DATA_MANAGER(manager->priv->dataManager));
> 
> Ditto. If you're going to use the weak pointer, then the entire class needs
> to be prepared to deal with the WebKitWebsiteDataManager being null. There's
> no point to the weak pointer otherwise.

It deals with that already, but using g_return macros.

> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebContext.cpp:82
> >   * webkit_web_context_get_security_manager() for that.
> 
> Remove "for that": the sentence works better without them.
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebContext.cpp:698
> >  WebKitCookieManager* webkit_web_context_get_cookie_manager(WebKitWebContext* context)
> 
> I think you should document that this function returns the
> WebKitCookieManager of this context's WebKitWebsiteDataManager. I know it's
> an implementation detail, but otherwise I think it's kind of confusing why
> both WebKitWebContext and WebKitWebsiteDataManager have a
> WebKitCookieManager.
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebView.cpp:2286
> > + * Get the #WebKitWebsiteDataManager associated to @web_view. If @web_view is not ephemeral
> 
> Add a comma after "ephemeral"
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebView.cpp:2287
> > + * the returned #WebKitWebsiteDataManager will be the same as the #WebKitWebView:web-context one.
> 
> "the #WebKitWebView:web-context one" doesn't sound great. I would write:
> "will be the same as the #WebKitWebsiteDataManager of @web_view's
> #WebKitWebContext."
> 
> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebsiteDataManager.cpp:103
> > +    GRefPtr<WebKitCookieManager> cookieManager;
> 
> Aha, so you do keep a ref! Good! Then you don't need the weak pointer in
> WebKitCookieManager, right? Surely the WebKitCookieManager cannot outlive
> the WebKitWebsiteDataManager due to this ref.

Not surely, but I guess we should assume it, yes.

> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebsiteDataManager.cpp:104
> > +    Vector<WebProcessPool*> processPools;
> 
> Is it possible to use Vector<WebProcessPool&> to clarify that the process
> pools are not null?

No, I don't think Vector can contain references.

> > Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/WebsiteData/WebsiteDataRecord.cpp:54
> > +#if PLATFORM(GTK)
> > +    if (hostName == "localhost")
> > +        return hostName;
> > +#endif
> 
> I think this should be an #else condition, not a GTK-specific condition.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/attachments/20170214/699be9e0/attachment.html>