New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add proposal for a no-callbacks data guideline #14302
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, very descriptive!
Web IDL callback interfaces can be observable to web developers, most easily if the interface has constants on it, as in the case of Callback functions don't have names so I don't think a guideline to prevent them from being included in BCD is necessary. Or are there any? |
No, that's not intentional. I didn't know that there were any exposed callback interfaces (and, so far, I've only seen
Historically, there were some, though I don't know if every one has been purged. Resolving everything in #6810 might settle that question. In any case, we don't add them now but haven't really said so explicitly. |
Doing a quick search through the Personally, I'm voting for just removing all callback data. I feel that their functionality is sufficiently represented by the features they're used in, and otherwise well documented on MDN web docs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The guideline as is works for me.
I think I'm with @queengooborg on this one. So, I also think we could go further and just don't record callbacks compat data of any kind.
@foolip did you have any more thoughts on this? Not sure if I overcame your objections or not. |
@ddbeck the direction here seems like the right one, but I'm actually still not sure what it will mean in practice in multiple cases. Should https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/NodeFilter#browser_compatibility remain? The For |
For For That said, I'd be open to fixing those two cases and moving on without a guideline entirely, if those are the only two cases that this guideline would tend to. |
Question for everyone: what do we need to do to move this PR forward? I'm not quite certain what we'd need to do next, if anything. |
This was approved during the bi-weekly BCD meeting, so this is LGTM! |
Summary
Add a guideline to codify that we don't include non-exposed callback interfaces as standalone interfaces in BCD.
Test results and supporting details
This copies heavily from the mixin guideline.
There's one iffy thing here: the example provided is one we don't actually follow in practice. Maybe there's a better example?
Related issues
Fixes #3068.