Re: PSA: Major preference service architecture changes inbound

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:57 AM, Kris Maglione wrote: > > While we're thinking about the prefs service, is there any possibility we >> could enable off-main-thread access to preferences? >> > > I think the chances of that are pretty close to 0, but I'll defer to Nick. > I agree, for the reasons

Intent to unship: Web animations composite modes on keyframes

As per my recent "Intent to ship: Web Animations core interfaces"[1], we do not intend to ship Animation composite modes until various spec work has been completed. However, when we implemented this feature, although we implemented it behind a pref, we failed to turn off all the ways of accessing

Re: PSA: Major preference service architecture changes inbound

We should totally be able to afford the very low cost of a rarely-contended lock. What's going on that causes uncached pref reads to show up so hot in profiles? Do we have a list of problematic pref keys? On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:06:48PM

Intent to ship: Web Animations core interfaces

As of 19 July or thereabouts, I intend to turn on the Web Animations core interfaces by default on all platforms. It has been developed behind the dom.animations-api.core.enabled preference. What is already shipping? * Animation interface with playback methods * Animation finish / cancel events

Re: PSA: Automated code analysis now also in Phabricator

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:06:07PM +0200, Jan Keromnes wrote: > Thanks all for the enthusiasm, we're also excited about what this can do > for us. > > > When did this become active? > > Last year on MozReview, yesterday on Phabricator. > > > Can existing diff be forced to be scanned if they

Re: PSA: Re-run old (non-syntax) try pushes with |mach try again|

On 17/07/2018 21:16, Nicholas Alexander wrote: Ahal, On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Andrew Halberstadt > wrote: While |mach try fuzzy| is generally a better experience than try syntax, there are a few cases where it can be annoying. One common case was

Re: PSA: Re-run old (non-syntax) try pushes with |mach try again|

Ahal, On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote: > While |mach try fuzzy| is generally a better experience than try > syntax, there are a few cases where it can be annoying. One > common case was when you selected a bunch of tasks in the > interface and pushed. Then at a later

PSA: Re-run old (non-syntax) try pushes with |mach try again|

While |mach try fuzzy| is generally a better experience than try syntax, there are a few cases where it can be annoying. One common case was when you selected a bunch of tasks in the interface and pushed. Then at a later date you wanted to push the exact same set of tasks again. This used to be a

PSA: [implicit_jscontext] XPIDL methods/attributes can now be implemented in JS

Hi all, It's now possible to have JS implementations of an XPIDL method/attribute marked as [implicit_jscontext]. This used to throw an exception because the xptcall stubs didn't support it. Bug 1475699 [0] fixes the stubs to skip the implicit context argument. This is useful when you have both

Re: PSA: Major preference service architecture changes inbound

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Jonathan Kew wrote: On 13/07/2018 21:37, Kris Maglione wrote: tl;dr: A major change to the architecture preference service has just landed, so please be on the lookout for regressions. We've been working for the last few weeks on rearchitecting the

Re: PSA: Automated code analysis now also in Phabricator

Thanks all for the enthusiasm, we're also excited about what this can do for us. > When did this become active? Last year on MozReview, yesterday on Phabricator. > Can existing diff be forced to be scanned if they weren’t before? The easiest way to force a re-scan is to re-upload the patch

Re: PSA: Automated code analysis now also in Phabricator

Hi > On 17 Jul 2018, at 3:22 pm, Jan Keromnes wrote: > > TL;DR -- “reviewbot” is now enabled in Phabricator. It reports potential > defects in pending patches for Firefox. > > Last year, we announced Code Review Bot (“reviewbot”, née “clangbot”), a > Taskcluster bot that analyzes every patch

Re: PSA: Automated code analysis now also in Phabricator

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Jan Keromnes wrote: > TL;DR -- “reviewbot” is now enabled in Phabricator. It reports potential > defects in pending patches for Firefox. Great work! This sounds super useful! -Ted ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: PSA: Automated code analysis now also in Phabricator

This is amazing and looks super-useful. Really looking forward to seeing what else we can add in this area! -Ekr On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Jan Keromnes wrote: > TL;DR -- “reviewbot” is now enabled in Phabricator. It reports potential > defects in pending patches for Firefox. > > Last

Re: PSA: Automated code analysis now also in Phabricator

Congrats, thanks to everyone involved for getting this working! I really like the idea of comparing errors with and without the patch, this would let us lint code where linting isn't explicitly enabled in mach lint/CI. One caveat to doing is that the review bot would need to make it very clear

PSA: Automated code analysis now also in Phabricator

TL;DR -- “reviewbot” is now enabled in Phabricator. It reports potential defects in pending patches for Firefox. Last year, we announced Code Review Bot (“reviewbot”, née “clangbot”), a Taskcluster bot that analyzes every patch submitted to MozReview, in order to automatically detect and report

Re: PSA: Major preference service architecture changes inbound

On 13/07/2018 21:37, Kris Maglione wrote: tl;dr: A major change to the architecture preference service has just landed, so please be on the lookout for regressions. We've been working for the last few weeks on rearchitecting the preference service to work better in our current and future