Update actions/checkout requirement to v2.3.4 #2
Conversation
This file contains 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
![dependabot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/29110?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Updates the requirements on [actions/checkout](https://github.com/actions/checkout) to permit the latest version. - [Release notes](https://github.com/actions/checkout/releases) - [Changelog](https://github.com/actions/checkout/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) - [Commits](https://github.com/actions/checkout/commits/5a4ac9002d0be2fb38bd78e4b4dbde5606d7042f) Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>
dependabot
bot
added
dependencies
|
OK, I won't notify you again about this release, but will get in touch when a new version is available. If you change your mind, just re-open this PR and I'll resolve any conflicts on it. |
dependabot
bot
deleted the
dependabot/github_actions/actions/checkout-v2.3.4
branch
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2021
1. Use GetWithoutInvalidation() instead of Get() in DCHECKs. We should never call Get() inside of a DCHECK(), because this can lead to a different code path depending on whether DCHECKs are enabled. 2. Get() should not cause immediate side effects. At most, it should queue up an invalidation for later processing. Fixing #1 and #2 were required in order to get past a first set of errors introduced by the new test. 3. The actual fix -- avoid infinite loop by calling a special new SlotAssignmentWillChange(), rather than ChildrenChanged(), where a minimal GetWithoutInvalidation() is called that does not lead to IsShadowContentRelevantForAccessibility() => FirstChild() => RecalcAssignedNodes() => ChildrenChanged() ... (infinite loop). A simpler potential fix is in CL:2965317 but requires more research. It's also mentioned in a TODO comment. Bug: 1219311 Change-Id: Iafaa289f241a851404ce352715d2970172a2e5f8 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2961158 Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dominic Mazzoni <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Aaron Leventhal <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#892778}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 24, 2021
This is a manual reland of https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3247449 The difference from the previous reland is that the browser tests now include 2 separate timeouts and a double rAF, to ensure that the presentation timestamp taken is far enough from both the time the first frame is sent as well as from the time the second frame is sent. More importantly, the test now actually is looking at the UKM metric, rather than at the histogram. Original change's description: > [LCP] Add animated image support > > This CL adds support for better handling of animated images in LCP: > * A new attribute is exposing the first animated frame's paint time > (behind a flag). > * `startTime` is not changed. > * The PageLoadMetrics reported for LCP are set to that first frame paint > time for animated images (behind another flag). > * Entries are not emitted until the image is loaded. > > Relevant spec issue: > w3c/largest-contentful-paint#83 Bug: 1260953 Change-Id: I34070bd90a74ed44281da63b547f13d9669f389b Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3250690 Reviewed-by: Nicolás Peña Moreno <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#936516}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
The previous patch: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3371612/6 checked an AnonymousIframe and an Iframe wasn't sharing the same partition. This one test: - Two sibling same-origin anonymous iframe share the same partition. - Two same-origin nested anonymous iframe share the same partition. - Two same-origin anonymous iframe from different popup do not share the same partition. Bug: 1285331,1226469 Change-Id: I7ebc3a5bbb5e1f12d0ceaac9d89c1deb30174a37 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3379159 Reviewed-by: Andrew Williams <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Arthur Sonzogni <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#960946} Co-authored-by: Arthur Sonzogni <[email protected]>
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
By adding new exhaustive tests under ordering/, it was revealed that the ordering between navigatesuccess/navigateerror and the committed/finished promises was not always consistent:
1. Simply adding a currentchange event handler would cause microtasks to run during commit, which changed some ordering.
2. Calling transitionWhile() would take us from the zero-promise case to the 1+-promise case in ScriptPromise::All(). As the new comment explains, both the spec and implementation have an observably-different fast path for the 0-promise case which caused changes in ordering.
In the course of fixing this, I found out that the did_finish_before_commit_ code in app_history_api_navigation.{h,cc} was actually not a mitigation for the case it stated, where promises passed to transitionWhile() would settle faster than the browser-process roundtrip for same-document traversals. That is in fact impossible, since we only fire the navigate event after the browser-process roundtrip has completed. Instead, they were a mitigation for (1).
This commit then ensures consistent ordering, tested with new rather-exhaustive tests, in the following manner:
* We move the firing of currentchange to before resolving the committed promise. This eliminates (1) and allows us to delete the did_finish_before_commit_ tracking.
* We always ensure we pass 1+ promises to ScriptPromise::All(). This eliminates (2).
A consequence of this is that we are now more likely to get rejected finished promises, in cases like
await appHistory.navigate("#1").committed;
await appHistory.navigate("#2").committed;
Before, the finished promise for the #1 navigation would go through the fast path per (2), and fulfill before the navigation to #2 canceled it. Now that does not happen, so code like the above will give an unhandled promise rejection for #1's finished promise.
To avoid this, we unconditionally mark finished promises as handled. This follows some web platform precedent, e.g. stream closed promises, where the promise is one of several information channels (in this case the developer might also find out via the AbortSignal or the navigateerror event). We do *not* do this for the committed promise though, as if a commit fails, that's probably something more deeply wrong, and cannot be ignored.
All of these changes will require spec updates.
For the tests, we introduce a new ordering/ directory which contains cross-cutting ordering tests, and we consolidate a few tests into the newly-introduced variant-driven exhaustive ones. A couple of other tests were affected by these changes too or fixed as a drive-by.
Change-Id: I8a50ca28d009e0a8a2c94331cd17f29b0a8dc463
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3405377
Reviewed-by: Nate Chapin <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Domenic Denicola <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#963772}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2022
This test fails with off-by-one values on the green background. This is attempt #2 to fix that, by adding fuzziness. Bug: 1323293 Change-Id: I9f51f257ef0064b6cd144a32ae01b148ed881112 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3638193 Reviewed-by: Philip Rogers <[email protected]> Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1001695}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
In the case that a popover contains an invoker that points back to that invoker, the tab navigation code used to get confused. E.g.: ``` <div id="menu" popover> <button autofocus popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #1</button> <button popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #2</button> </div> ``` In this case, trying to tab between the first and second button would break because the second button appeared to be an invoker for a new popover, when in reality it was an invoker for the same popover. Fixed: 1399601 Bug: 1307772 Change-Id: I276370d7c8eee0dd32f0c89da202a0d3777bf911 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4133482 Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <[email protected]> Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1089080}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
…on discrete properties." Original patch: https://crrev.com/c/4219315 Revert 1: https://crrev.com/c/4305045 Reland 1: https://crrev.com/c/4304846 Revert 2: https://crrev.com/c/4307944 Despite the most relaxed value in TestExpectations for discrete-no-interpolation.tentative.html, some bots are still breaking for reasons I don't understand. I am going to remove the test completely until it stops crashing or failing. This patch will still be useful despite the lack of tests because other people are doing prototyping work that builds on this change. Bug: 1399631, 1413556 Change-Id: Ic08f16d6436e37acc8947a94ca699c1735fe221f Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4308075 Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <[email protected]> Auto-Submit: Joey Arhar <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1114026}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
…sitions on discrete properties."" This reverts commit 268250b.
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
…les transitions on discrete properties.""" (web-platform-tests#38936) This reverts commit 78f70fd.
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
Most of the logic now lives on NaviagateEvent itself (in React() and ReactDone()), which the new NavigateEvent::Reaction is a minimal callback function wrapper. Change-Id: Id31152b048fc7166a8ac45bda7e136a2143fd56f Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4369772 Reviewed-by: Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Nate Chapin <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1123074}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2023
This CL fixes a :has() invalidation bug when the following conditions
are met:
1. A style rule uses a :has() pseudo class. The :has() test result is
affected by the anchor element's relationship to its sibling
element at fixed distance. (e.g. '.a:has(+ .b) {}')
2. The :has() pseudo class was tested on an anchor element and it
didn't matched.
3. If a sibling of the anchor element is removed, the :has() will
match the anchor element.
(e.g. '<div class=a></div><div id=target></div><div class=b></div>')
4. Remove a sibling of the anchor element so that the :has() matches
the anchor element. (e.g. 'target.remove();')
For the removal, StyleEngine have to schedule :has() invalidation
even if the removed element doesn't have any identifier stored in
RuleFeatureSet. But it is not efficient to schedule :has()
invalidation for every element removal.
To avoid unnecessary :has() invalidation, StyleEngine checks whether
its parent has the 'ChildrenAffectedByDirectAdjacentRules' flag set
or not.
Currently, the SelectorChecker sets the flag only when it consumes
a direct adjacent combinator(+). This works most cases but it doesn't
work in this case (condition #2) because the SelectorChecker stops
the :has() argument selector matching before consuming the direct
adjacent combinator. Due to this, the parent of the anchor element
doesn't have the 'ChildrenAffectedByDirectAdjacentRules' flag set
and the StyleEngine doesn't schedule the :has() invalidation for the
removal.
To fix the error, when the SelectorChecker tests a :has() pseudo
class on an anchor element and the :has() is affected by the anchor
element's relationship to a sibling at fixed distance, the
SelectorChecker sets the flag of the parent to indicate that
StyleEngine need to schedule :has() invalidation whenever any child
of the element is removed.
Bug: 1480643
Change-Id: I5ec2e3c1db2773020368415f68bca1503367e669
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4864627
Commit-Queue: Byungwoo Lee <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1198137}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2024
See https://drafts.csswg.org/css-pseudo-4/#first-text-line 1. For a block container that establishes an inline formatting context, the "first formatted line" is its first line box, if it has one. Otherwise, there is no first formatted line. 2. Otherwise, for a block container that has block children, look inside the first in-flow block child (if any) and do #1 if it establishes an inline formatting context. Otherwise, do #2. In short, we don't need to search for line boxes in blocks after the first block child. If there is no line in the first child, there's no "first formatted line". There's no spec for "last formatted line", but apply the same logic. I.e. if the last block child has no line, there's no "last formatted line". This allows us to simplify things a bit, especially when it comes to re-laying out (kTextBoxTrimEndDidNotApply). The only case where we need this now is for blocks inside inlines: If the last formatted line is inside a block-in-inline, we need to go back and re-lay it out if it turns out to be the last line (which isn't something we can check inside block-in-inline layout). Note: When adding support for block fragmentation, trimming at a fragmentainer's block end will be another case where we need to re-lay out. The motivation for this change was text box trimming inside block fragmentation (upcoming CL), and be able to add support for that and still be reasonably confident that it won't become too complicated. This fixes one existing test. Some other existing tests had to be updated because of this change (they were making incorrect assumptions about first/last formatted line). As a result of that, some new refs had to be added, since other tests were piggy-backing on the same ref. Bug: 40254880, 367766472 Change-Id: I3fcc53af86353725b1f5705a5528493a72bf2e69 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5952979 Commit-Queue: Morten Stenshorne <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Koji Ishii <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1373765}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2024
This implements the core Sanitizer logic. This is still missing spec-mandated handling of "javascript:" URLs, and will have to be updated as the spec develops. But other than that, the basics are now there. ------------------ This a re-land of crrev.com/c/5922125. Patch set #1 is the original version, as reviewed and submitted there. Patch set #2 contains the fix. Analysis of the bug is in https://issues.chromium.org/issues/356601280#comment16 Bug: 356601280, 379235386, 379246316 Change-Id: I06d4a9a378330cc76015e3922b9e288d9503881a Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6021482 Reviewed-by: Yifan Luo <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Daniel Vogelheim <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1385522}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2024
This patch teaches the network service's `URLLoader` how to evaluate the SRI-valid subset of HTTP Message Signatures, blocking mismatched responses once headers are received and processed. This check is implemented behind a new feature flag, which is disabled by default. End-to-end tests live in web platform tests under //web_tests/virtual/sri-message-signatures that enables the flag. This is part of a chain of CLs implementing this feature (#2 from https://wicg.github.io/signature-based-sri/#overview): 1. [Parsing] https://crrev.com/c/6020612 2. [Validation 1] https://crrev.com/c/6030571 3. [Validation 2] https://crrev.com/c/6032589 4. [Enforcement] https://crrev.com/c/6038714 [You are here] `url_loader.cc` are the only meaningful changes in behavior reported as undercovered. These are tested through the WPT included in this CL. Bug: 379534943 Low-Coverage-Reason: COVERAGE_UNDERREPORTED The changes to Change-Id: I6ece80da25ed4329a6f976c2c74c639c2799b856 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6038714 Reviewed-by: Kenichi Ishibashi <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Camille Lamy <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Kent Tamura <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Mike West <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1389294}
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.
Updates the requirements on actions/checkout to permit the latest version.
Release notes
Sourced from actions/checkout's releases.
Changelog
Sourced from actions/checkout's changelog.
... (truncated)
Commits
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
@dependabot rebase.Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
@dependabot rebasewill rebase this PR@dependabot recreatewill recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it@dependabot mergewill merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot squash and mergewill squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot cancel mergewill cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging@dependabot reopenwill reopen this PR if it is closed@dependabot closewill close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually@dependabot ignore this major versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this minor versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this dependencywill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)