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

Regression fix: tokenize features earlier in window.open() #3108

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Oct 9, 2017

Conversation

3 participants
@annevk
Member

annevk commented Oct 9, 2017

Regressed in a68a1f7.

Fixes #3107.

@annevk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@annevk

annevk Oct 9, 2017

Member

I pushed a second commit for another regression in this algorithm. I think they are best as separate commits.

Member

annevk commented Oct 9, 2017

I pushed a second commit for another regression in this algorithm. I think they are best as separate commits.

@domenic

domenic approved these changes Oct 9, 2017

@domenic domenic merged commit e1533f1 into master Oct 9, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@domenic domenic deleted the annevk/tokenize-on-time branch Oct 9, 2017

@bzbarsky

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bzbarsky

bzbarsky Oct 9, 2017

Collaborator

Fwiw, browsers need to know the features to determine the target browsing context.

Collaborator

bzbarsky commented Oct 9, 2017

Fwiw, browsers need to know the features to determine the target browsing context.

@domenic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@domenic

domenic Oct 9, 2017

Member

Hmm, maybe should have waited for @bzbarsky's review, sorry :-/

Member

domenic commented Oct 9, 2017

Hmm, maybe should have waited for @bzbarsky's review, sorry :-/

@annevk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@annevk

annevk Oct 9, 2017

Member

I think it's okay since we've restored the status quo. We have #1902 and #2464 to figure out how to improve this setup further.

Member

annevk commented Oct 9, 2017

I think it's okay since we've restored the status quo. We have #1902 and #2464 to figure out how to improve this setup further.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment