<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mcatanzaro@igalia.com" title="Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@igalia.com>"> <span class="fn">Michael Catanzaro</span></a>
</span> changed
<a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [GTK] Update cookie manager API to properly work with ephemeral sessions"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168230">bug 168230</a>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Attachment #301345 Flags</td>
<td>review?
</td>
<td>review-
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [GTK] Update cookie manager API to properly work with ephemeral sessions"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168230#c2">Comment # 2</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [GTK] Update cookie manager API to properly work with ephemeral sessions"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168230">bug 168230</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mcatanzaro@igalia.com" title="Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@igalia.com>"> <span class="fn">Michael Catanzaro</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>Comment on <span class=""><a href="attachment.cgi?id=301345&action=diff" name="attach_301345" title="Patch">attachment 301345</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=301345&action=edit" title="Patch">[details]</a></span>
Patch
View in context: <a href="https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=301345&action=review">https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=301345&action=review</a>
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.
<span class="quote">> 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);</span >
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().
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:40
> + * The WebKitCookieManager defines how to setup and handle cookies.</span >
setup (noun) -> set up (verb)
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:43
> * store cookies, with webkit_cookie_manager_set_persistent_storage(),</span >
Remove the comma
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:144
> + g_object_add_weak_pointer(G_OBJECT(dataManager), reinterpret_cast<void**>(&manager->priv->dataManager));</span >
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.
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:165
> * By default, @cookie_manager doesn't store the cookies persistenly, so you need to call this</span >
Preexisting problem, but let's fix it now: persistenly -> persistently
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:176
> + for (auto* processPool : webkitWebsiteDataManagerGetProcessPools(manager->priv->dataManager)) {</span >
This is a big problem. Either manager->priv->dataManager can be legitimately null here, or you should not have used a weak pointer.
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitCookieManager.cpp:197
> + g_return_if_fail(WEBKIT_IS_WEBSITE_DATA_MANAGER(manager->priv->dataManager));</span >
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.
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebContext.cpp:82
> * webkit_web_context_get_security_manager() for that.</span >
Remove "for that": the sentence works better without them.
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebContext.cpp:698
> WebKitCookieManager* webkit_web_context_get_cookie_manager(WebKitWebContext* context)</span >
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.
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebView.cpp:2286
> + * Get the #WebKitWebsiteDataManager associated to @web_view. If @web_view is not ephemeral</span >
Add a comma after "ephemeral"
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebView.cpp:2287
> + * the returned #WebKitWebsiteDataManager will be the same as the #WebKitWebView:web-context one.</span >
"the #WebKitWebView:web-context one" doesn't sound great. I would write: "will be the same as the #WebKitWebsiteDataManager of @web_view's #WebKitWebContext."
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebsiteDataManager.cpp:103
> + GRefPtr<WebKitCookieManager> cookieManager;</span >
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.
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/API/gtk/WebKitWebsiteDataManager.cpp:104
> + Vector<WebProcessPool*> processPools;</span >
Is it possible to use Vector<WebProcessPool&> to clarify that the process pools are not null?
<span class="quote">> Source/WebKit2/UIProcess/WebsiteData/WebsiteDataRecord.cpp:54
> +#if PLATFORM(GTK)
> + if (hostName == "localhost")
> + return hostName;
> +#endif</span >
I think this should be an #else condition, not a GTK-specific condition.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>