Getters and setters are not properly inherited in codegen #5875

nox · 2015-04-27T22:05:37Z

Interfaces inheriting others with getters and setters have to reimplement said getters and setters themselves.

nox · 2015-04-27T22:10:49Z

An example of such thing is DOMSettableTokenList inheriting from DOMTokenList.

nox · 2015-04-27T23:11:36Z

https://github.com/nox/servo/blob/domsettabletokenlist/components/script/dom/domsettabletokenlist.rs

frewsxcv · 2015-08-22T13:49:31Z

An example of such thing is DOMSettableTokenList inheriting from DOMTokenList.

Do you know of another example of this? That one no longer exists

nox · 2015-08-22T14:26:36Z

@frewsxcv No.

This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in servo#5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters.

This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in servo#5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters. The new failing test isn't related to Unforgeable attributes, but to the fact that all Document instances currently have a Location, even if their window isn't in a browsing context.

Implement [Unforgeable] This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in #5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters.  [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7988)

This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in servo#5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters. The new failing test isn't related to Unforgeable attributes, but to the fact that all Document instances currently have a Location, even if their window isn't in a browsing context.

Implement [Unforgeable] This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in #5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters.  [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7988)

This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in servo#5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters. The new failing test isn't related to Unforgeable attributes, but to the fact that all Document instances currently have a Location, even if their window isn't in a browsing context.

This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in servo#5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters. Given the unforgeable holder object has the same prototype as actual instances of the interface, the finalize hook needs to check its slot pointer for nullness before dropping it. The new failing test isn't related to Unforgeable attributes, but to the fact that all Document instances currently have a Location, even if their window isn't in a browsing context.

This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in servo#5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters. Given the unforgeable holder object has the same prototype as actual instances of the interface, the finalize hook needs to check its slot pointer for nullity before dropping it. The new failing test isn't related to Unforgeable attributes, but to the fact that all Document instances currently have a Location, even if their window isn't in a browsing context.

Implement [Unforgeable] This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in #5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters.  [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7988)

This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in servo#5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters. Given the unforgeable holder object has the same prototype as actual instances of the interface, the finalize hook needs to check its slot pointer for nullity before dropping it. The new failing test isn't related to Unforgeable attributes, but to the fact that all Document instances currently have a Location, even if their window isn't in a browsing context.

Implement [Unforgeable] This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object. Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar fashion as getters and setters as filed in #5875) and require to be redefined in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces. No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good measure because they are not compatible with setters.  [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7988)

servo#5875

frewsxcv · 2016-01-12T02:44:14Z

Another instance of this: #9266

…ajack Link to tracking issue for redundant codegen getter #5875  [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/9266)

…ter (from frewsxcv:redundant-getter-tracking-issue); r=metajack servo/servo#5875 Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo Source-Revision: 6736593c475da81c1cf61616c7a63d084f140826 UltraBlame original commit: d5607e718e72c1683d573f78693696d2415d9b8a

pshaughn · 2020-01-05T17:29:26Z

Does this result in properties being observably at the wrong level on the prototype chain?

nox · 2020-01-06T09:15:27Z

I do not think so, but I didn't check.

jdm added the A-content/bindings The DOM bindings label Apr 27, 2015

nox mentioned this issue Oct 4, 2015

Add HTMLFormControlsCollection interface #7845

Closed

nox self-assigned this Oct 4, 2015

nox mentioned this issue Oct 13, 2015

Implement [Unforgeable] #7988

Merged

frewsxcv added a commit to frewsxcv/servo that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2016

Link to tracking issue for redundant codegen getter

1108510

servo#5875

frewsxcv mentioned this issue Jan 12, 2016

Link to tracking issue for redundant codegen getter #9266

Merged

nox removed the C-assigned There is someone working on resolving the issue label May 18, 2016

nox removed their assignment May 18, 2016

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Getters and setters are not properly inherited in codegen #5875

Getters and setters are not properly inherited in codegen #5875

nox commented Apr 27, 2015

nox commented Apr 27, 2015

nox commented Apr 27, 2015

frewsxcv commented Aug 22, 2015

nox commented Aug 22, 2015

frewsxcv commented Jan 12, 2016

pshaughn commented Jan 5, 2020

nox commented Jan 6, 2020

Getters and setters are not properly inherited in codegen #5875

Getters and setters are not properly inherited in codegen #5875

Comments

nox commented Apr 27, 2015

nox commented Apr 27, 2015

nox commented Apr 27, 2015

frewsxcv commented Aug 22, 2015

nox commented Aug 22, 2015

frewsxcv commented Jan 12, 2016

pshaughn commented Jan 5, 2020

nox commented Jan 6, 2020