Re: refcounting - which types to use ?

On 17.08.2017 04:03, Shih-Chiang Chien wrote: You should use |forget| to transfer the ownership of the nsIArray from list to _retval. Ok, thanks. Already suspected that (found some similar things in the code). Could we update the docs (maybe some set of examples) ? IIRC, there're some places

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > > I still think opposing this charter because the group should still > > be in the incubation phase would be inconsistent with our shipping

Re: refcounting - which types to use ?

You should use |forget| to transfer the ownership of the nsIArray from list to _retval. /* nsIArray FindRecipients (in AString name); */ NS_IMETHODIMP nsAddrBookService::FindRecipients(const nsAString & addr, nsIArray * *_retval) { nsresult rv = NS_OK; nsCOMPtr list =

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > I still think opposing this charter because the group should still > be in the incubation phase would be inconsistent with our shipping > and promotion of WebVR. > ​I agree that would be exceptionally odd and require a

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

On Wednesday 2017-07-12 12:20 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2017-07-12 06:48 -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote: > > There is some contention in the WebVR community group around the submission > > of this charter proposal, as there is currently no public support from any > > of the

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: > > On Aug 16, 2017, at 07:23, James Graham wrote: > > > > On 16/08/17 01:26, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: > >> I guess not a lot of people are aware of it, but for WebRTC we still have > >> two distinct

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

> On Aug 16, 2017, at 07:23, James Graham wrote: > > On 16/08/17 01:26, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: >> I guess not a lot of people are aware of it, but for WebRTC we still have >> two distinct implementations for the networking code. >> So if I understand the impact here right

Re: Intent to ship version 4 of the Safe Browsing protocol

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult < enrico.weig...@gr13.net> wrote: > Regarding CID vs CONTRACTID - still haven't understood why CIDs are > random numbers, instead of human-readable names ​Someone in 1999 or 2000 thought it was a good idea and set the pattern.​

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

On 16/08/17 19:36, Ben Kelly wrote: My only thought about windows7-debug is that android is a variant of linux. Running a linux platform might be closer to android behavior. But I don't have a known specific difference in mind. Right it seems like there are two use cases here: 1) Tests that

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Joel Maher wrote: > Thanks everyone for chiming in here. I see this isn't as simple as a > binary decision and to simplify things, I think turning on all non-e10s > tests that were running for windows7-debug would give us reasonable >

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

Thanks everyone for chiming in here. I see this isn't as simple as a binary decision and to simplify things, I think turning on all non-e10s tests that were running for windows7-debug would give us reasonable coverage and ensure that users on our most popular OS (and focus for 57) have a stable

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

On 08/15/2017 04:29 PM, jma...@mozilla.com wrote: I would propose running these above tests on windows7-opt (we don't have these running yet in windows 10, although we are close), and only running specific tests which are not run in e10s mode, turning them off December 29th, 2017. Keep in

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

On 15/08/17 21:39, Ben Kelly wrote: On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Joel Maher wrote: All of the above mentioned tests are not run on Android (well mochitest-media is to some degree). Is 4 months unreasonable to fix the related tests that do not run in e10s? Is there

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

On 16/08/17 01:26, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: I guess not a lot of people are aware of it, but for WebRTC we still have two distinct implementations for the networking code. So if I understand the impact here right we just lost test coverage for probably a couple of thousand lines of code. […]

Re: Intent to ship version 4 of the Safe Browsing protocol

On 16.08.2017 12:40, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: This and other queries like it are best asked and answered on > https://support.mozilla.org/ . Unfortunately, it only tells how to switch some things off, but not to remove it entirely. Neither does it tell anything about the security implications

Async Iteration rides the trains

Hi all. I've landed a patch that enables Async Iteration [1] (async generator and for-await-of syntax) on non-nightly and also in chrome code, in bug 1352312 [2]. (that was nightly-only and content-only from bug 1331092 [3]) so now it's available from firefox 57, but I'd suggest waiting for 1-2

refcounting - which types to use ?

Hi folks, I'm still a bit confused on which types (nsCOMPtr, ...) to use when exactly, in combination w/ IDLs. Let's consider a case where an nsArray is created and returned (as rval, not out-parameter): IDL: [scriptable, uuid(ea0d8b3d-a549-4666-82d8-3a82cee2a3f1)] interface

Re: Intent to ship version 4 of the Safe Browsing protocol

On 16/08/2017 11:11, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: On 16.08.2017 01:46, Francois Marier wrote: After a year's worth of development, bug fixes, and integration testing, we are now ready to enable the latest version [1] of the Safe Browsing API in Firefox 56, two releases ahead of

Re: Intent to ship version 4 of the Safe Browsing protocol

On 16.08.2017 01:46, Francois Marier wrote: After a year's worth of development, bug fixes, and integration testing, we are now ready to enable the latest version [1] of the Safe Browsing API in Firefox 56, two releases ahead of schedule and only a few weeks behind Chrome. How can I get rid of