| 11:40 | <Jake Archibald> | annevk: much appreciated! |
| 12:02 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Yes I just looked again and indeed I missed your last comments. Will get back to this next week. Thanks! |
| 13:09 | <hsivonen> | WPT stash docs say that it's read once. Is there any enforcement of against reading twice if the first read fails? |
| 13:09 | <hsivonen> | That is, can try to read and write if the read fails? |
| 13:10 | <hsivonen> | Should I expect an exception or None if there's nothing written and I try to read? |
| 13:10 | <hsivonen> | (I'm trying to make a .py file track if it has already been requested) |
| 13:15 | <jgraham> | https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/web-platform/tests/tools/wptserve/wptserve/stash.py#190-205 It will return None if there's no data. You can also take the lock (using e.g. with stash.lock:) if you're doing a get-or-insert operation and are worried about multiple concurrent requests. |
| 13:36 | <محسن عبادنژاد> | سلام |
| 13:37 | <محسن عبادنژاد> | devsnek: TabAtkins |
| 14:10 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal: prolly tomorrow |
| 14:12 | <annevk> | Jake Archibald: I was thinking more about browsing context reuse (and potentially annotating with origin) and in a case of A1 navigating to B navigating to A2, if A1 popups C, C should only see B and A2 if nobody is isolated. Otherwise it should only see A1. |
| 14:13 | <annevk> | Jake Archibald: Supplying this mainly as an additional data point as to why it seems better to not go down that route. |
| 14:13 | <hsivonen> | https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/web-platform/tests/tools/wptserve/wptserve/stash.py#190-205 It will return |
| 14:14 | <Jake Archibald> | annevk: yeah, I was initially going to try and make it so A2 could also see C, if A1 and A2 had the same isolation, but it doesn't work for a bunch of reasons. |