so it is a FinchFlag `ModulePreloadReferrer` and it is not listed in about_flags.cc - hope i filled out the correct field in chromestatus should it be listed in about_flags for webdevs to enable?
Daniel Bratell schrieb am Mittwoch, 3. September 2025 um 17:17:28 UTC+2: > Great! > > Can you please add the flag to appropriate field in the feature's > chromestatus entry so that people can find the flag if needed? > > /Daniel > On 2025-09-02 20:30, Helmut Januschka wrote: > > It's relanded now with a feature flag! Thanks to everyone involved, and > sorry for the troubles! > > Helmut Januschka schrieb am Dienstag, 2. September 2025 um 11:00:20 UTC+2: > >> the revert was back-merged into 140, and i am working on a reland here: >> http://crrev.com/c/6898599 with feature flag around the change. >> >> [email protected] schrieb am Freitag, 29. August 2025 um 05:40:48 >> UTC+2: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:25 PM Krishna Govind <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you, any impact on Android Webview? Will it be safe to merge the >>>> revert? >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, it will impact Android WebViews as well. (but is safe to merge) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Merged the revert to latest canary branch 7381 and triggered a new >>>> canary #141.0.7381.3, please verify once available, will approve M140 >>>> merge >>>> after canary coverage/verification. >>>> Updated the bugs: >>>> >>>> - https://g-issues.chromium.org/issues/409959472#comment17 >>>> - https://g-issues.chromium.org/issues/441770546#comment6 >>>> >>>> Adding @Daniel Cheng as well for context >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Krishna >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 12:46 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Merge request issue is at https://issues.chromium.org/issues/441770546 >>>>> CL is at >>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6897886 >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:37 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 6:21 PM 'Krishna Govind' via blink-dev < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Mike, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for including Srinivas and me in this discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since M140 was released to early stable yesterday with this feature >>>>>>> enabled by default and without all necessary approvals, it's critical >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> we merge the revert to M140 and recut the M140 Stable RC for release on >>>>>>> Tuesday, September 2nd. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I request that the revert be landed to trunk as soon as possible: [ >>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6895357] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a few questions for clarity: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Is this feature applicable only to Windows? I'm asking because >>>>>>> it's listed under the Blink component, but the bug only has >>>>>>> OS=Windows >>>>>>> applied: [https://g-issues.chromium.org/issues/409959472]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe the feature is applicable to all OSes beyond iOS. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - How safe is it to disable this feature this late in the M140 >>>>>>> release cycle? >>>>>>> - The enabled-by-default CL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6509110> >>>>>>> landed on July 12th in Canary 140.0.7309.0, and we branched M140 >>>>>>> (7339) on >>>>>>> August 4th. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe it's safe to disable. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Do we have any coverage at all with this feature disabled? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In terms of tests I believe the CL's revert also removes the >>>>>> relevant WPTs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Please provide a launch bug for this feature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://issues.chromium.org/issues/409959472 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> We will need to create an IRM and request a postmortem for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Srinivas Sista for his input as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Krishna >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 8:39 AM Mike Taylor <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Helmet - please don't be too hard on yourself. We've all >>>>>>>> been there. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For now, I would recommend getting the revert landed and requesting >>>>>>>> a merge into beta. Thanks for requesting the other reviews. >>>>>>>> On 8/28/25 5:36 p.m., Helmut Januschka wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> again, super sorry, this might be the single worst chromium day i >>>>>>>> had since my first contribution. >>>>>>>> tried to fillout everything in chromestatus entry, and request all >>>>>>>> the reviews again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a revert CL is here: >>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6895357 >>>>>>>> ready to review/submit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> just a note, about potential breakage, the WPT's i added, did pass >>>>>>>> on other browsers already (that should be no excuse; but might be a >>>>>>>> hint of >>>>>>>> a hopefully non-nuclear blast radius) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> please feel free - to let me know what the next steps are, i am >>>>>>>> fully committed to do whatever is necessary to turn this situation >>>>>>>> into a >>>>>>>> positive state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am Do., 28. Aug. 2025 um 16:54 Uhr schrieb Mike Taylor < >>>>>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey Helmut, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oops. It's unfortunate that this feature is missing Privacy, >>>>>>>>> Security, Enterprise, Debuggability & Testing reviews (per Chris' >>>>>>>>> request >>>>>>>>> back in May)... but I think more concerning is the fact that it's not >>>>>>>>> guarded behind a feature flag. If we do end up breaking some sites >>>>>>>>> (the >>>>>>>>> risk seems pretty low, I think... but not zero, and sometimes it >>>>>>>>> takes a >>>>>>>>> few months for subtle bugs to be understood), we don't have an easy >>>>>>>>> way to >>>>>>>>> disable this besides merges and a Stable respin. My instinct would be >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> revert the CL on trunk and get that merged to 141 Beta ASAP. Adding >>>>>>>>> M140 >>>>>>>>> release owners Srinivas and Krishna for their guidance on what to do >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the stable release (maybe nothing is the right answer - it doesn't >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>> like an emergency right now). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You could then re-land the feature behind a disabled-by-default >>>>>>>>> flag, and work through the normal reviews process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (There are also unanswered questions from Chris that would help >>>>>>>>> API OWNERs review the feature - can you answer those and kick off the >>>>>>>>> reviews in the chromestatus entry?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>> On 8/27/25 4:11 p.m., Helmut Januschka wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I mistakenly landed the [CL]( >>>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6509110) >>>>>>>>> in M140 before getting the intent to ship approved. My apologies for >>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate guidance on how to proceed, given that. >>>>>>>>> One way to go would be to keep the CL landed, and get your >>>>>>>>> approvals (and the approval of the various checks retroactively). >>>>>>>>> Another would be to revert the CL and try to merge-back that >>>>>>>>> revert to 140 (allthough stable cut was yesterday :'( ). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please let me know which way you prefer to go. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chris Harrelson schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Mai 2025 um 17:13:58 >>>>>>>>> UTC+2: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please also fill out the Privacy, Security, Enterprise, >>>>>>>>>> Debuggability and Testing sections in the chromestatus entry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:51 PM Domenic Denicola < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 5:10 AM Chromestatus < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Explainer None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#link-type-modulepreload:script-fetch-options >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes modulepreload to properly send referrer headers by using >>>>>>>>>>>> ClientReferrerString() instead of NoReferrer(). This aligns Chrome >>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>>> HTML specification which requires using the client's referrer for >>>>>>>>>>>> module >>>>>>>>>>>> fetches. Includes WPT test verifying both dynamic imports and >>>>>>>>>>>> modulepreload >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly send referrer headers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you update this to talk about what effects web developers >>>>>>>>>>> see, instead of using the names of Chromium-codebase functions? >>>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>>> summary will be reflected to web developer-facing blog posts and >>>>>>>>>>> such. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component Blink>Loader>Preload >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3ELoader%3EPreload%22> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status Not applicable >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The primary risk is that some servers may have adapted to >>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome's non-standard behavior, implementing logic that assumes >>>>>>>>>>>> modulepreload requests will never include referrer headers. These >>>>>>>>>>>> systems >>>>>>>>>>>> could potentially mishandle or reject requests with the newly >>>>>>>>>>>> added >>>>>>>>>>>> referrer information. However, this risk is mitigated by the fact >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> other major browsers already implement the correct behavior, >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning most >>>>>>>>>>>> cross-browser web applications should already handle referrer >>>>>>>>>>>> headers >>>>>>>>>>>> properly. Additionally, since modulepreload is a relatively recent >>>>>>>>>>>> feature, >>>>>>>>>>>> widespread dependence on the incorrect behavior is unlikely. The >>>>>>>>>>>> benefit of >>>>>>>>>>>> standards compliance and consistent behavior across script loading >>>>>>>>>>>> methods >>>>>>>>>>>> outweighs these potential compatibility concerns. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Gecko*: Shipped/Shipping >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *WebKit*: Shipped/Shipping >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Web developers*: No signals >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Other signals*: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> WebView application risks >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, >>>>>>>>>>>> such that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based >>>>>>>>>>>> applications? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms >>>>>>>>>>>> (Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>>>>>> No >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? No >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Above you said there were WPTs, but here you say there are not. >>>>>>>>>>> Which is correct? If there are such tests, can you provide links to >>>>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Flag name on about://flags None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Finch feature name None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Non-finch justification None >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Either a Finch feature name or (rarely) a non-Finch >>>>>>>>>>> justification is necessary for any possibly-breaking change like >>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rollout plan Will ship enabled for all users >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? False >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug https://crbug.com/409959472 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No milestones specified >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web >>>>>>>>>>>> compat or interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to >>>>>>>>>>>> known >>>>>>>>>>>> github issues in the project for the feature specification) whose >>>>>>>>>>>> resolution may introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing >>>>>>>>>>>> to naming >>>>>>>>>>>> or structure of the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5144463990849536?gate=4969922291302400 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com>. >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>>>>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6823a747.050a0220.624fd.01b3.GAE%40google.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6823a747.050a0220.624fd.01b3.GAE%40google.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>>>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra-BywrbKFHpjkM-SVespzLEesezHZSkn9S_vy1UrWXKjQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra-BywrbKFHpjkM-SVespzLEesezHZSkn9S_vy1UrWXKjQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b42f99d4-1881-476a-acfc-e98bde8dee54n%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b42f99d4-1881-476a-acfc-e98bde8dee54n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMf41adLTqu70hNjXPWUZBEW8QXS53WKAdBH-Wy0G3bh40dBXA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMf41adLTqu70hNjXPWUZBEW8QXS53WKAdBH-Wy0G3bh40dBXA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/189d979c-80c4-46b6-8ac4-74c4453f082en%40chromium.org > > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/189d979c-80c4-46b6-8ac4-74c4453f082en%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/3ea99272-f35f-4208-8d70-0c0c23baff60n%40chromium.org.
