This is mostly stolen from Gecko. As there, we define the unforgeable members
on an object stored in the slots of the prototype object. They are then copied
onto instance objects when they are instantiated. It should be noted that
proxy objects see their unforgeable memebers defined on their expando object.
Unforgeable attributes aren't properly inherited in codegen (in a similar
fashion as getters and setters as filed in #5875) and require to be redefined
in derived interfaces. Fortunately, there are currently no such interfaces.
No unforgeable members can be included into the TestBinding interfaces for good
measure because they are not compatible with setters.
Given the unforgeable holder object has the same prototype as actual instances
of the interface, the finalize hook needs to check its slot pointer for nullity
before dropping it.
The new failing test isn't related to Unforgeable attributes, but to the fact
that all Document instances currently have a Location, even if their window
isn't in a browsing context.
Functions returning `Root<T>` are prefixed by "root_" and the ones returning
`*const T` by "native_".
Functions taking `*mut JSObject` are now suffixed by "_from_object" and the ones
taking `&T` by "_from_reflector".
This should make it somewhat easier to experiment with alternative
representations in the future. To reduce churn, this commit leaves the String
field public, though.
Also, this will allow us to use the default String type to represent the IDL
USVString type, which explicitly forbids unpaired surrogates, ans as such is
a better match to the Rust String type.
Moving this slot setting prior to initializing standard classes and
other initialization tasks means that we can effectively use JS_GC_ZEAL.
Fixes#6057.
This method is given a DOMClass value and returns whether it derives from Self.
Interfaces with no descendants directly check whether the given DOMClass is the
same as their own.
Clarify some code in do_create_interface_objects
rval.get() is believed to be always null upon entering this function.
This assumption is verified by the added assertion.
It makes more sense to move the block of code that was moved inside
the if statement which is the only place where it can be initialized.
Fixes#7941.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7943)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Introduce DOMClass::heap_size_of
It holds a function pointer to the HeapSizeOf::heap_size_of_children()
implementation corresponding to that IDL interface.
This removes the need for a clumsly TypeId-based match expression in the
former heap_size_of_eventtarget() function.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7972)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
It holds a function pointer to the HeapSizeOf::heap_size_of_children()
implementation corresponding to that IDL interface.
This removes the need for a clumsly TypeId-based match expression in the
former heap_size_of_eventtarget() function.
rval.get() is believed to be always null upon entering this function.
This assumption is verified by the added assertion.
It makes more sense to move the block of code that was moved inside
the if statement which is the only place where it can be initialized.
Fixes#7941.
Refactor #[jstraceable] to #[derive(JSTraceable)]
fixes#6524. I had to make an additional change not mentioned in the ticket - adding the `#[feature]` to enable deriving custom traits but I assume that's expected at this time.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6529)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Implement Named constructors and the Image constructor for HTMLImageElement
I'm not sure if I like how I mostly just duplicated the code in CodegenRust.py, so that might need to be refactored.
Instead of just calling it Image, we might want to call it ConstructorImage, to make it clear that it's a constructor. Anyone have an opinion on that?
There seems to be a bug in the HTMLImageElement getter/setter as the value is 0 regardless of what I do. This seems to be unrelated to my commits, so I'll investigate that separately.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6110)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
