On Tue Nov 28 14:17:15 2023 +0000, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
Resetting the point to NULL is the same as using the `doc->window->base.outer_window`, which has potential for a lot more regressions (I don't mean the test). How is that better?!? I don't know why you think this is so risky; as mentioned in the MR's message, those are the only things that would be affected, and they're all either fixed or handled (handled means same behavior as before). I spent time carefully reviewing them, I'd like that not to be a waste and just dismissed like that. Sure I might have missed some, but it's pretty unlikely. I also tested real world apps and it seemed fine. I was hoping a review to "double check" it would provide the extra eyes on it, instead of being dismissed, even though it's correct. Also another argument for it is that, since I suspect it will have to be fixed properly at some point, the sooner we do it, the easier it will be to review, which is now. The more complicated mshtml becomes (necessarily, to implement new features), the harder it will be to revamp this. Why not do it now? It just seems to me that you dismiss it because of potential regressions without actually analyzing what could cause them at all, since my goal with this patch and the MR message was definitely to keep same behavior as before *except* in places where I fixed it (and mentioned in the message). *If* that's not the case everywhere I'd like to know, too, but I did carefully review it. Would you please reconsider?
Resetting the point to NULL is the same as using the `doc->window->base.outer_window`, which has potential for a lot more regressions (I don't mean the test). How is that better?!?
I don't know why you think this is so risky; as mentioned in the MR's message, those are the only things that would be affected, and they're all either fixed or handled (handled means same behavior as before). I spent time carefully reviewing them, I'd like that not to be a waste and just dismissed like that.
Sure I might have missed some, but it's pretty unlikely. I also tested real world apps and it seemed fine. I was hoping a review to "double check" it would provide the extra eyes on it, instead of being dismissed, even though it's correct.
Also another argument for it is that, since I suspect it will have to be fixed properly at some point, the sooner we do it, the easier it will be to review, which is now. The more complicated mshtml becomes (necessarily, to implement new features), the harder it will be to revamp this. Why not do it now?
It just seems to me that you dismiss it because of potential regressions without actually analyzing what could cause them at all, since my goal with this patch and the MR message was definitely to keep same behavior as before *except* in places where I fixed it (and mentioned in the message). *If* that's not the case everywhere I'd like to know, too, but I did carefully review it. Would you please reconsider?