| 00:29 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: oh SymbolDescriptiveString sounds great! |
| 00:35 | <domfarolino> | Or really just String() too for simplicity I guess hah |
| 02:59 | <domfarolino> | Interesting, I found that `new Request("", {referrer: Symbol("Test")})` kills the content window in chrome and disconnects the DevTools from the page, instead of throwing a TypeError (same for all request init members) |
| 03:08 | <domfarolino> | K it doesn't happen in Canary so not as interesting...but good! |
| 04:08 | <bathos> | curious if anybody can shed light on something in the spec for me |
| 04:09 | <bathos> | in § 12.2.6.1, "Creating and inserting nodes", when foster parenting is enabled: |
| 04:09 | <bathos> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#creating-and-inserting-nodes:foster-parent |
| 04:10 | <bathos> | at step 5 one knows that there is an open table. it says: |
| 04:10 | <bathos> | "If last table has a parent node, then let adjusted insertion location be inside last table's parent node, immediately before last table, and abort these substeps." |
| 04:10 | <bathos> | I’m unsure what circumstance can occur where that table could not have a parent node. |
| 04:29 | <bathos> | oh, derp. it’s actually made explicit in a note right below: |
| 04:29 | <bathos> | "These steps are involved in part because it's possible for elements, the table element in this case in particular, to have been moved by a script around in the DOM, or indeed removed from the DOM entirely, after the element was inserted by the parser." |
| 11:58 | <annevk> | JakeA: are you also cross-checking Safari with WPT? Would be interesting to know what kind of bugs are not covered there |
| 11:58 | <JakeA> | annevk: writing some new tests right now :D |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | JakeA++ |
| 14:06 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I guess STP implemented fetch.destination... I wonder if edge implements that yet or if webkit is the first |
| 14:06 | <wanderview> | fetch request.destination |
| 14:14 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, hey, anything blocking https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3308 ? |
| 14:14 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I wonder if they have a test for request.destination... that would be nice to have |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: I was thinking there is no particular rush |
| 14:41 | <Ms2ger> | No, that's true |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: so I wanted to look into the things Justin mentioned and maybe address those |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: as it happens vacation time is starting so might not land until the first week of 2018 or so |
| 14:42 | <Ms2ger> | Enjoy the holidays :) |
| 14:48 | <JakeA> | wanderview: I don't think there are any tests currently :/ |
| 14:49 | <wanderview> | JakeA: they've made some other WPT test changes recently |
| 14:50 | <wanderview> | well, I noticed one I was not thrilled about |
| 14:50 | <JakeA> | wanderview: oh? |
| 14:51 | <wanderview> | JakeA: they removed the check for FetchEvent.isReload and replaced it with a check that its not there... which does match the spec now... but we have a spec issue open about this and we talked about in previous F2F meetings leaving the test in until the replacement could be spec'd |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: you too! |
| 14:52 | <JakeA> | wanderview: hmm, yeah, that's not so good |
| 14:53 | <JakeA> | wanderview: Edge doesn't support URLSearchParams so I'll find something else |
| 14:53 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I mean... they're not completely wrong and I'm not asking for it to be backed out... but I hope we see more spec issue participation |
| 14:53 | <JakeA> | agreed |
| 14:54 | <wanderview> | JakeA: FWIW, I think MS said they are working on URLSearchParams for interop on SW... so maybe its ok? |
| 14:55 | <wanderview> | JakeA: searchParams are also used in about-blank-replacements.https.html (I just wrote that), clients-matchall-order.https.html, and claim-with-redirect.https.html |
| 14:55 | <JakeA> | wanderview: ahh ok, will leave it as is |
| 14:56 | <wanderview> | JakeA: if they ask us to change it we can... but I'm fairly certain real web sites assume its there in service workers |
| 15:07 | <Ms2ger> | wanderview, if there's ongoing discussion, I'd remove the check for non-support too |
| 18:25 | <adrianba> | searchParams in Edge -> https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/issues/8993198/ |
| 18:26 | <adrianba> | it says fixed but not flighted (I don't know how that gets updated) but I don't think that's true - pretty sure the latest flights include support |
| 19:52 | <Domenic> | welcome to #whatwg, adrianba ^_^ |
| 19:55 | <adrianba> | \o/ |
| 20:20 | <annevk> | 🎉 |
| 20:41 | <othermaciej> | Newbie git/GitHub question: what is the best way to rebase a branch to current master? |
| 20:41 | <othermaciej> | I know that when your PR has conflicts, GitHub has a GUI way to do it, but I have a branch without conflicts that I'd like to rebase |
| 20:46 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Why does "websocket" not exist in the Request mode enum? Will you never get a chance to see this value in JS? |
| 20:51 | <domfarolino> | othermaciej: You're looking for a way to do it via UI? |
| 20:51 | <othermaciej> | domfarolino: command-line is fine - I am not sure of the best command-line invocation |
| 20:53 | <domfarolino> | Hm, I guess I always just run `git rebase origin/master` from the current branch unless I'm misunderstanding something |
| 20:54 | <othermaciej> | OK, I will try that! |
| 20:55 | <othermaciej> | I am seriously such a git newbie that I did not know this was a thing |
| 20:55 | <domfarolino> | haha no problem! hope it works |
| 21:04 | <domfarolino> | othermaciej: I almost always use `rebase` instead of `merge` to avoid a merge commit |
| 21:06 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Oh, yep just saw the note which describes that! |
| 21:10 | <othermaciej> | git rebase seems to put me in a weirdly broken mode |
| 21:10 | <othermaciej> | do I need to rebase the remote branch instead of the local one or something? |
| 21:24 | <domfarolino> | othermaciej: Hm are you in detached head state? You should be in the base you want to rebase when running `git rebase`, did it give you any errors and tell you to fix them then continue with `git rebase --abort` or `--continue`? |
| 21:24 | <othermaciej> | My local git experts say I need to either force push the result of my rebase, or merge master instead of rebasing |
| 21:26 | <domfarolino> | othermaciej: Ohh yes force push is prob required to overwrite your old commit with the rebase + new commit. That's why it isn't always good to use it on branches other people are also working on I believe |
| 21:26 | <othermaciej> | merge did what I wanted |
| 21:26 | <domfarolino> | because then the histories diverge, however it can be convenient when working on something alone |
| 21:27 | <domfarolino> | othermaciej: That's good, yeah I just don't like the extraneous merge commit |
| 21:28 | <othermaciej> | The PR will ultimately get squash merged so I think the extra commit is ok |
| 21:31 | <domfarolino> | `rebase` rebases old commits on a new tip, however the "old" commits that are replayed have new updated hashes. When updating a branch the main diff b/w rebase and merge is the order in which updating happens. Merge keeps your stuff and brings the new stuff in on top. Rebase brings in the old stuff as if your changes never existed, then replays them on top. |
| 21:32 | <domfarolino> | othermaciej: Yeah agreed |
| 21:32 | <domfarolino> | othermaciej: hopefully that helped a little sorry it put you in a broken state! |
| 21:34 | <othermaciej> | domfarolino: no worries, now I will better understand how to do this in the future |