Reject permissonState calls if userVisible is not present as parameter

Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.cpp

Index: Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.cpp
diff --git a/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.cpp b/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.cpp
index 90a7f642a0609fd76d63b1742bcce2aaf7792703..8352bd06beff509da783d728d884ed5c2991cc9e 100644
--- a/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.cpp
+++ b/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.cpp
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ ScriptPromise PushManager::permissionState(ScriptState* scriptState, const PushS
         if (!document->domWindow() || !document->frame())
             return ScriptPromise::rejectWithDOMException(scriptState, DOMException::create(InvalidStateError, "Document is detached from window."));
     }
+    if (!options.userVisibleOnly()) {
+        return ScriptPromise::rejectWithDOMException(scriptState, DOMException::create(NotSupportedError, "non-visible push messages are not supported."));

[Peter Beverloo, 2015/05/07 15:28:21]

What about: "Chrome does not yet support push subscriptions that do not enable
the userVisibleOnly option."

This (a) indicates that it's Chrome-specific behavior, not per the spec, and (b)
refers to the userVisibleOnly option, which is a term for developers to work
towards enabling this.

[Miguel Garcia, 2015/05/07 19:40:46]

I'd prefer to avoid "yet" since it's not clear exactly what's our timeline and
conditions for silent push.

I will go with "Chrome does not support push subscriptions that do not enable
the userVisibleOnly option."


On 2015/05/07 15:28:21, Peter Beverloo wrote:

+    }
 
     RefPtrWillBeRawPtr<ScriptPromiseResolver> resolver = ScriptPromiseResolver::create(scriptState);
     ScriptPromise promise = resolver->promise();