Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code

Issue 29329751: Issue 3251 - Add shouldAllowAsync() function for non-urgent policy checks (Closed)

Created:
Nov. 4, 2015, 3 p.m. by Wladimir Palant
Modified:
Nov. 19, 2015, 6:05 p.m.
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Issue 3251 - Add shouldAllowAsync() function for non-urgent policy checks

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 3

Patch Set 2 : Added shouldAllowAsync() as a separate function and improved JSDoc comments #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+55 lines, -18 lines) Patch
M lib/child/contentPolicy.js View 1 3 chunks +55 lines, -18 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 6
Wladimir Palant
Nov. 4, 2015, 3 p.m. (2015-11-04 15:00:08 UTC) #1
Wladimir Palant
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29329751/diff/29329752/lib/child/contentPolicy.js File lib/child/contentPolicy.js (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29329751/diff/29329752/lib/child/contentPolicy.js#newcode102 lib/child/contentPolicy.js:102: } The diff is messy but all the code ...
Nov. 4, 2015, 3:05 p.m. (2015-11-04 15:05:22 UTC) #2
tschuster
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29329751/diff/29329752/lib/child/contentPolicy.js File lib/child/contentPolicy.js (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29329751/diff/29329752/lib/child/contentPolicy.js#newcode68 lib/child/contentPolicy.js:68: function shouldAllow(window, node, contentType, location, callback) This should really ...
Nov. 12, 2015, 1:38 p.m. (2015-11-12 13:38:13 UTC) #3
Wladimir Palant
I adjusted commit message, reflected in the review title. Interdiff is a mess now, but ...
Nov. 12, 2015, 3:01 p.m. (2015-11-12 15:01:13 UTC) #4
tschuster
Thanks. I didn't realize that was wrong, but the isObject change looks like a good ...
Nov. 18, 2015, 1:40 p.m. (2015-11-18 13:40:37 UTC) #5
Wladimir Palant
Nov. 19, 2015, 6:05 p.m. (2015-11-19 18:05:44 UTC) #6
On 2015/11/18 13:40:37, tschuster wrote:
> Thanks. I didn't realize that was wrong, but the isObject change looks like a
> good idea.

It wasn't wrong, I simply avoided passing in one more parameter this way
(originally parameters weren't necessary because processPolicyResponse was a
closure).

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld