[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-03-01 Thread slightlyoff via Chromestatus
LGTM3 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chro

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-03-01 Thread Daniel Bratell
LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-03-01 17:40, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 to optimistically add a usecounter and enable (with a base feature that'd enable to disable this if needed) On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:30 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: Adding the usecounter and optimistically defaulting to enable it (

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-03-01 Thread Yoav Weiss
LGTM1 to optimistically add a usecounter and enable (with a base feature that'd enable to disable this if needed) On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:30 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Adding the usecounter and optimistically defaulting to enable it (while > keeping an eye on the numbers) would also work for me. >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-02-22 Thread Yoav Weiss
Adding the usecounter and optimistically defaulting to enable it (while keeping an eye on the numbers) would also work for me. On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:27 PM Rick Byers wrote: > If this only ever caused connections that previously failed to now succeed > as they do in other browsers, then the r

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-02-22 Thread Rick Byers
If this only ever caused connections that previously failed to now succeed as they do in other browsers, then the risk of it causing a compat issue is exceedingly low right? Perhaps this is more of a bugfix than a breaking API change? I see the implementation is already behind a base::Feature. One

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-02-22 Thread Yoav Weiss
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:32 PM Jiacheng Guo wrote: > We don't currently have a use counter for it. > Does it make sense to add the port overflow check under a flag and a > usecounter as well to record the frequency of setting URL ports with an > overflow value. > I think it would make sense. If

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-02-22 Thread 'Jiacheng Guo' via blink-dev
We don't currently have a use counter for it. Does it make sense to add the port overflow check under a flag and a usecounter as well to record the frequency of setting URL ports with an overflow value. We can collect data first and then gradually enable the feature based on the data we collected.

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-02-22 Thread Yoav Weiss
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:23 PM 'Jiacheng Guo' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > The implementation can be found at > https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4252309 > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 9:39 PM Jiacheng Guo wrote: > >> Contact emails...@google.com >> >> Ex

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters

2023-02-22 Thread 'Jiacheng Guo' via blink-dev
The implementation can be found at https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4252309 On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 9:39 PM Jiacheng Guo wrote: > Contact emails...@google.com > > ExplainerThis is an implementation of an established standard. > > Specificationhttps://url.spec.whatwg.org/