Skip to content
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

Refactor in components/script/dom/htmlanchorelement.rs to #11349

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@shuky19
Copy link

shuky19 commented May 23, 2016

Thank you for contributing to Servo! Please replace each [ ] by [X] when the step is complete, and replace __ with appropriate data:

  • ./mach build -d does not report any errors
  • ./mach test-tidy --faster does not report any errors
  • These changes fix #11280 (github issue number if applicable).

Either:

  • There are tests for these changes OR
  • These changes do not require tests because test are already exists and passed

Pull requests that do not address these steps are welcome, but they will require additional verification as part of the review process.

Refactor in components/script/dom/htmlanchorelement.rs to make update_href accept &Url argument


This change is Reviewable

…_href accept &Url argument
@highfive
Copy link

highfive commented May 23, 2016

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Servo team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Ms2ger (or someone else) soon.

@highfive
Copy link

highfive commented May 23, 2016

Heads up! This PR modifies the following files:

  • @KiChjang: components/script/dom/htmlanchorelement.rs
@highfive
Copy link

highfive commented May 23, 2016

warning Warning warning

  • These commits modify script code, but no tests are modified. Please consider adding a test!
@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

KiChjang commented May 23, 2016

I'm sorry, but there isn't any consensus on whether this PR is what we need yet.

@metajack
Copy link
Contributor

metajack commented May 23, 2016

Was there discussion of this somewhere? If so, that discussion should be summarized here.

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

KiChjang commented May 23, 2016

The issue referenced (#11280) has discussions that are waiting an answer from @jdm.

@metajack
Copy link
Contributor

metajack commented May 23, 2016

Sorry, I should have followed the reference. Thanks for clarifying.

@jdm
Copy link
Member

jdm commented May 24, 2016

Sorry, we're going to need to sit on these changes until we resolve the confusion in #11281.

@jdm
Copy link
Member

jdm commented Sep 13, 2016

Nobody ever replied in #11281. I don't think there's any point in leaving this open until there's some movement there, unfortunately.

@jdm jdm closed this Sep 13, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.