Issue 3443 - Use process script instead of a frame script in Element Hiding Helper

This is mostly a straightforward change, with the old JS module becoming the process script (messaging endpoints move there from the old frame script). However, element selection no longer knows which process script to communicate with - so it has to broadcast the message, and the process scripts decide whether to respond depending on whether the element belongs to their process.

[saroyanm, 2015-12-21 16:48:56]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
File chrome/content/processScript.js (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
chrome/content/processScript.js:28: 
Nit: No new line should be needed here.

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
chrome/content/processScript.js:31: var onShutdown = (function()
I think it's something that I pointed in another review, I think we should be
fine declaring this as "let".

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
chrome/content/processScript.js:39: 
Nit: No new line should be needed here.

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/lib/aardvark.js
File lib/aardvark.js (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/lib/aardvark.js#new...
lib/aardvark.js:592: if (!elem || !this.window)
Not sure how this fix is related to current issue.

[Wladimir Palant, 2015-12-21 19:14:16]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
File chrome/content/processScript.js (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
chrome/content/processScript.js:28: 
On 2015/12/21 16:48:55, saroyanm wrote:
> Nit: No new line should be needed here.

I disagree - I'd rather separate functional blocks, and setting up messaging
isn't the same thing as registering the main functionality.

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
chrome/content/processScript.js:31: var onShutdown = (function()
On 2015/12/21 16:48:55, saroyanm wrote:
> I think it's something that I pointed in another review, I think we should be
> fine declaring this as "let".

True, this is no longer necessary. In fact, the complicated guard against
multiple invocation isn't really necessary either - I removed it.

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
chrome/content/processScript.js:39: 
On 2015/12/21 16:48:55, saroyanm wrote:
> Nit: No new line should be needed here.

Same as above - I'd rather separate functional blocks.

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/lib/aardvark.js
File lib/aardvark.js (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/lib/aardvark.js#new...
lib/aardvark.js:592: if (!elem || !this.window)
On 2015/12/21 16:48:55, saroyanm wrote:
> Not sure how this fix is related to current issue.

I guess it's not. This merely silences an exception that came up while testing -
this code path would be entered again after selection was already canceled.
Creating a separate issue seems to be quite a bit of overhead for this.

[saroyanm, 2015-12-23 10:57:05]

LGTM

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
File chrome/content/processScript.js (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29332902/diff/29332903/chrome/content/proc...
chrome/content/processScript.js:31: var onShutdown = (function()
On 2015/12/21 19:14:15, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> On 2015/12/21 16:48:55, saroyanm wrote:
> > I think it's something that I pointed in another review, I think we should
be
> > fine declaring this as "let".
> 
> True, this is no longer necessary. In fact, the complicated guard against
> multiple invocation isn't really necessary either - I removed it.

Looks good.