Issues with "Handle Functional Event"

[jakearchibald]

Sorry for the vague title, I couldn't explain it briefly.

https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#handle-functional-event.

"Handle Functional Event" wants an ExtendableEvent, a registration, and some callback steps. These callback steps are run on the active service worker's event loop. However, I need to be on the service worker's event loop in order to create the ExtendableEvent.

Maybe the algorithm should take the event name instead of an ExtendableEvent, and we just expect other specs to call "Update Service Worker Extended Events Set" themselves.

Also, it feels like "Update Service Worker Extended Events Set" only needs to take an ExtendableEvent, since the active worker could be determined from the global the ExtendableEvent was created in.

So other specs would do:

1. Handle a functional event for registration and "eventName" using the following steps:
   1. Let event be a (…new event object).
   2. Dispatch event on the current global object.
   3. Update Service Worker Extended Events Set with event.

[jakearchibald]

In fact, we could define "Dispatch a service worker event" which takes an ExtendableEvent, which also calls "Update Service Worker Extended Events Set".

So it'd become:

1. Handle a functional event for registration and "eventName" using the following steps:
   1. Let event be a (…new event object).
   2. Dispatch a service worker event event.

[jungkees]

"Handle Functional Event" wants an ExtendableEvent, a registration, and some callback steps. These callback steps are run on the active service worker's event loop. However, I need to be on the service worker's event loop in order to create the ExtendableEvent.

Right. I checked two call sites, Notifications API and Push API. Notifications API was creating an event within the callbackSteps without giving an event argument to Handle Funcational Event. (So, the arguments and the algorithm input params needed to be clarified.) Push API was creating an event from the caller's steps. Yeah, so we need to clarify this. I left review comments in #1199.