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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update Chromium versions for BluetoothRemoteGATTService API #10197
Update Chromium versions for BluetoothRemoteGATTService API #10197
Changes from all commits
9be61b9
663e389
3335289
ae97cb3
38e5f01
ab0a6b5
cffac2e
5529bb6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with simplifying all of this repeated OS and flag information since it's already on the parent feature. But it does mean that information won't be visible on a page like https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/BluetoothRemoteGATTService/getCharacteristic#browser_compatibility.
@ddbeck how do you think we should deal with cases like this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's some disagreement on this point. See #6509 for the broader issue.
My approach to flags has been to only represent the flag on the feature that requires the flag, not its descendants (unless the flags differ). For example, a CSS property behind a flag doesn't need to duplicate the flag data on subfeatures for property values. This does lead to a poorer presentation for individual interface member pages, however. In those cases I don't think it's too bad: for
SomeFlaggedInterface.method()
, you'd get an informativeSomeFlaggedInterface is not defined
error.But since there's no consensus, I'm happy to allow anything that looks reasonable. If you think it'd be preferable to have flags inherit, then go for it, but I'm not going to ask for it myself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll go along with removing the flags on subfeatures here. I don't know what I think should be the guideline :)