We're currently fairly vague and inconsistent about the values we provide to
content policy implementations for requestOrigin and requestPrincipal. In some
cases they're the triggering principal, sometimes the loading principal,
sometimes the channel principal.
Our existing content policy implementations which require or expect a loading
principal currently retrieve it from the context node. Since no current
callers require the principal to be the loading principal, and some already
expect it to be the triggering principal (which there's currently no other way
to retrieve), I chose to pass the triggering principal whenever possible, but
use the loading principal to determine the origin URL.
As a follow-up, I'd like to change the nsIContentPolicy interface to
explicitly receive loading and triggering principals, or possibly just
LoadInfo instances, rather than poorly-defined request
origin/principal/context args. But since that may cause trouble for
comm-central, I'd rather not do it as part of this bug.
MozReview-Commit-ID: LqD9GxdzMte
Running eslint with --fix didn't fix many of the issues. The majority here had to be fixed by hand but a significant majority of the issues were related to a few files that I was able to use find-and-replace with. I regret not making this in to separate commits of the hand-fixes and the fixes from --fix but I don't recall --fix fixing any of the issues.
MozReview-Commit-ID: ANyg2qfo3Qx
The base .eslintrc is essentially a merge of the root Toolkit .eslintrc and
the devtools .eslintrc, with some minor changes to match our prevalent style.
For the most enforces the coding styles that we've been using most
consistently. There are a couple of significant differences, though:
* The rule for opening brace alignment can only be applied globally, and
doesn't make exceptions for top-level functions. I chose to turn it on, and
change the brace style of existing top-level functions that violated it,
since the rule seemed worth using, and that's the direction most Toolkit JS
code has been headed anyway.
* The rule for switch/case statements requires an added indentation level for
case statements. Most of our switch statements did not use an extra level
of indentation, and I initially wrote the rule to enforce that style, until
I came across case statements that used blocks, and required the extra
indentation level for sanity.
