| 15:52 | <shu> | do we have Metamask delegates in this channel? |
| 15:52 | <shu> | reshipping iterator helpers with the weird getters broke the Metamask extension somehow |
| 15:52 | <shu> | would appreciate some help debugging |
| 16:12 | <Kris Kowal> | MetaMask do are not members of ECMA at the moment, but I am in touch and can connect and also assist later today. |
| 16:18 | <shu> | Kris Kowal: would be much appreciated, thank you |
| 16:21 | <Mathieu Hofman> | FYI the SES shim had been updated last year in anticipation of Iterator helpers to expose these in its original shape (data values), but we forgot to update the shim after the decision to switch to accessors, resulting in this breakage. This was discovered a couple weeks ago in Chrome canary, and fixed, but I suppose the fix may not yet have been deployed by Metamask |
| 16:37 | <bakkot> | both of the iterator helper breakages were from people writing code in anticipation of unshipped proposals :( |
| 16:37 | <bakkot> | time to start conducting meetings in secret, I guess |
| 16:39 | <bakkot> | "the feature will have to work with all existing code" is bad enough; if the constraint becomes "also has to work with code that people will write in anticipation of this feature" it will become outright impossible |
| 16:40 | <Mathieu Hofman> | Well in the latter case it's a TC39 member (Agoric) implementing support for a proposal that reached stage 3, so I think that's acceptable. Also the issue should be already fixed, just possibly not deployed. |
| 16:45 | <shu> | would be good to confirm and then have Metamask deploy an update asap |
| 16:46 | <shu> | anyways Kris has started an email thread, will wait for Metamask folks to chime in as the PST workday gets started |
| 16:46 | <shu> | i really don't want to unship this again |
| 19:01 | <Kris Kowal> | For those watching here, we believe this is an issue that MetaMask discovered on Chrome Canary two weeks ago. Agoric shipped a patched and that was rolled up for a MetaMask release that is rolling out now and has reached 1% of Chrome users. |
| 19:14 | <shu> | what is being rolled out to 1% exactly? do 1% of the extension users see an updated version of the extension on the store? (i didn't know the extension store worked that way) |
| 19:15 | <shu> | or is it that the extension loads some remote code, and the remote code has the bug, and that remote code has been updated for 1% of the users? |
| 19:15 | <bakkot> | chrome extensions do have partial rollout https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/update#partial-rollout |
| 19:16 | <Kris Kowal> | Let’s figure that out over email. |
| 19:16 | <shu> | ah i see, good to know |
| 20:16 | <mgaudet> | leobalter: A ShadowRealms question: Where do you want to have issues opened for tests that don't seem to be running as expected when inside a shadow realm (e.g. missing dependencies, such as setInterval) |
| 23:03 | <bakkot> | the uuid proposal was never formally withdrawn despite its champions doing it in WHATWG instead; should it be moved to the inactive proposals list? https://github.com/tc39/proposal-uuid |
| 23:07 | <ljharb> | i still think it belongs in the language, but if Benjamin E. Coe isn't interested in pursuing that (and neither is anyone else) then yes |
| 23:10 | <bakkot> | I don't think engines are going to be willing to add it under a different name, so the only way it could be "in the language" is by pulling parts of the crypto spec in |
| 23:10 | <bakkot> | which would be fine/good, but is a different project really |
| 23:13 | <shu> | agreed, i think pulling it in at this stage would be a very different proposal, not picking up where the current one leaves off |
| 23:13 | <shu> | given that i support marking it as inactive |
| 23:21 | <ljharb> | i agree that's the unfortunate reality yes |
| 23:33 | <Michael Ficarra> | we have to accept that WinterCG provides a de facto extended stdlib for JS via the minimum common web platform API |
| 23:54 | <leobalter> | ha, good question. Can you link me to any example? I'd assume that would mean fixing coverage within WPT, but I don't how issue tracking is handled there. I'd kickstart reporting wpt coverage related issues within the shadowrealm proposal repo. |