Skip to content

Migrate IntersectionObserverEntry to KDL #2314

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
Bashamega wants to merge 12 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Migrate IntersectionObserverEntry to KDL #2314

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9a179b6
Migrate IntersectionObserverEntry
Bashamega Dec 24, 2025
61c09a1
new line
Bashamega Dec 24, 2025
2846591
Merge branch 'microsoft:main' into IntersectionObserverEntry
Bashamega Dec 24, 2025
fe51565
Fix
Bashamega Dec 24, 2025
706609a
Merge branch 'microsoft:main' into IntersectionObserverEntry
Bashamega Dec 26, 2025
5eddd2d
Merge branch 'main' into IntersectionObserverEntry
Bashamega Dec 26, 2025
c91c7a4
Update inputfiles/patches/intersection-observer.kdl
saschanaz Dec 26, 2025
ca7bf6b
Merge branch 'microsoft:main' into IntersectionObserverEntry
Bashamega Dec 27, 2025
4c7befe
-
Bashamega Dec 27, 2025
ae01428
-
Bashamega Dec 27, 2025
6a7373b
Update constructor syntax for IntersectionObserverEntry
saschanaz Dec 27, 2025
db959a0
remove ctor check
saschanaz Dec 27, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions inputfiles/patches/intersection-observer.kdl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
removals {
interface IntersectionObserverEntry {
constructor // WebKit-only as of 2025-12
}
dictionary IntersectionObserverInit {
member delay // Blink only as of 2025-12
member trackVisibility // Blink only as of 2025-12
Expand Down
3 changes: 0 additions & 3 deletions inputfiles/removedTypes.jsonc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -36,9 +36,6 @@
}
}
},
"IntersectionObserverEntry": {
"constructor": null // WebKit-only as of 2024-07
},
"OffscreenCanvasRenderingContext2D": {
"implements": ["CanvasSettings"] // Blink only as of 2025-01
},
Expand Down
10 changes: 7 additions & 3 deletions src/build/patches.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -245,8 +245,8 @@ function handleMixinAndInterfaces(
return {
name,
...optionalNestedMember("events", event, { event }),
properties: { property },
methods: { method },
...optionalNestedMember("properties", property, { property }),
...optionalNestedMember("methods", method, { method }),
...optionalMember("extends", "string", node.properties?.extends),
...optionalMember("overrideThis", "string", node.properties?.overrideThis),
...optionalMember("forward", "string", node.properties?.forward),
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ function handleMethodAndConstructor(
const signatureIndex = child.properties?.signatureIndex;
const type = handleTyped(typeNodes, child.properties?.returns);

let signature: OverridableMethod["signature"] = [];
let signature: OverridableMethod["signature"] | undefined = undefined;
if (type || params.length > 0) {
// Determine the actual signature object
const signatureObj: DeepPartial<Signature> = {
Expand All @@ -365,6 +365,10 @@ function handleMethodAndConstructor(
} else {
signature = [signatureObj];
}
if (signatureObj.param?.length === 0 && !signatureObj.type) {
// If there are no params and no return type, remove the signature
signature = undefined;
Copy link
Collaborator

@saschanaz saschanaz Dec 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This would cause problem for non-removal patches, no?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Bashamega Bashamega Dec 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This wouldn't cause an issue; we already have patches for non-removal methods, and it is working prefectly

Copy link
Collaborator

@saschanaz saschanaz Dec 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I mean if we want to add a signature... Hmm, but doing so would require a type, so maybe this is fine.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Bashamega Bashamega Dec 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, so this is good. Anything else?

Copy link
Collaborator

@saschanaz saschanaz Dec 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not "good" but more like "I can live with this for now" for me... but yeah this should be okay.

Copy link
Collaborator

@saschanaz saschanaz Dec 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

but constructors don't have a return type, so constructor is also a valid non-removal constructor. Doing this would break adding a parameter-less constructor 🤔

(Meaning we should throw if type exists for constructor btw)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Bashamega Bashamega Dec 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I will open another one of the throwing an error. It wouldn't count as a removal because the parameters array will be filled. We check for both

Copy link
Collaborator

@saschanaz saschanaz Dec 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remove it when signatureIndex exists? Having signatureIndex without having params or types don't make sense.

(In that case we'll only remove the constructor/method's signature but not themselves, which I think is fine as it should ultimately behave same)

}
}
return {
name,
Expand Down
Loading