Pass rule start to parser rather than just a location. #277
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @SimonSapin / @upsuper / @heycam |
This is: * More generic, as the state has more information like the source index. * Slightly cheaper to compute, as the source location requires math to compute, which the parser state doesn't I need this to improve CSS sanitization in Gecko. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1680084
heycam
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2020
|
Should we have a unit test for the fixed at-rule location? |
|
We have one integration test in Gecko for it and no existing tests for @bors-servo r=heycam |
|
📌 Commit 1e4dbb7 has been approved by |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-travis |
moz-v2v-gh
pushed a commit
to mozilla/gecko-dev
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2020
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
moz-v2v-gh
pushed a commit
to mozilla/gecko-dev
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2020
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
moz-v2v-gh
pushed a commit
to mozilla/gecko-dev
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2020
…eycam, a=RyanVM The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
moz-v2v-gh
pushed a commit
to mozilla/gecko-dev
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2020
…eycam, a=RyanVM The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
sidvishnoi
pushed a commit
to sidvishnoi/gecko-webmonetization
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2020
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
sidvishnoi
pushed a commit
to sidvishnoi/gecko-webmonetization
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2020
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
gecko-dev-updater
pushed a commit
to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified-and-comments-removed
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2020
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677 UltraBlame original commit: 7fbd27be335d24b67954e6b44701f9ff1cd117cd
gecko-dev-updater
pushed a commit
to marco-c/gecko-dev-comments-removed
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2020
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677 UltraBlame original commit: 7fbd27be335d24b67954e6b44701f9ff1cd117cd
gecko-dev-updater
pushed a commit
to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2020
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677 UltraBlame original commit: 7fbd27be335d24b67954e6b44701f9ff1cd117cd
emilio
added a commit
to servo/servo
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2021
The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
aosmond
pushed a commit
to aosmond/gecko
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2021
…eycam, a=RyanVM The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
Mossop
pushed a commit
to Mossop/firefox-working
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2025
…eycam, a=RyanVM The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
bhearsum
pushed a commit
to mozilla-releng/staging-firefox
that referenced
this pull request
May 1, 2025
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
bhearsum
pushed a commit
to mozilla-releng/staging-firefox
that referenced
this pull request
May 1, 2025
…eycam The changes should be trivial. The third_party changes are up for review in servo/rust-cssparser#277 (and of course I'll land with a bump to 0.28 rather than the override after that gets r+'d). The basic idea is that with this we have the actual start offset of the rule, so we wouldn't include html comments or other invalid stuff we discard during sanitization in bug 1680084. But that's a separate change. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D98677
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is:
More generic, as the state has more information like the source
index.
Slightly cheaper to compute, as the source location requires math to
compute, which the parser state doesn't
I need this to improve CSS sanitization in Gecko.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1680084