Skip to content
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

Changes to attribute whitelist logic #10564

Merged
merged 36 commits into from
Aug 31, 2017
Merged

Changes to attribute whitelist logic #10564

merged 36 commits into from
Aug 31, 2017

Conversation

nhunzaker
Copy link
Contributor

@nhunzaker nhunzaker commented Aug 29, 2017

This is a work in progress PR so that @gaearon and I can coordinate.

  • Block and warn about non-boolean attributes getting true and false.
    • Bug: <svg><font-face x-height={false} /></svg> passes through.
  • NaN should always be stringified, and should always warn.
  • Functions should always be stringified, and should always warn, except for events.
  • Symbols should always be ignored, and should always warn.
    • Bug: <svg><font-face-format string={Symbol()} /></svg> throws
  • aria (exactly) and anything starting with on (except events) should always be blocked and warn.
  • <div onClick={0}> should warn. Also NaN, false.
  • It turns out we did support data before. Should we allow it again?
  • Make unknown event message better (it currently advises to use strings which won't work)
  • Pass badly cased reserved attributes through

Possible future work:

  • Fix SVG <font-face> taking custom element path
  • Warn if numeric attributes get non-numeric values
  • Warn if Symbol is passed to special props like value, dangerouslySetInnerHTML
  • Warn if function is passed to special prop like suppressContentEditableWarning
  • Don't pass function to special props like <textarea value>, etc
  • Should we blacklist selectedIndex? It used to warn, now it confusingly gets set.
  • Let's make off/on and yes/no attributes work as intended.
  • Same for crossorigin.

@@ -76,21 +82,6 @@ var HTMLDOMPropertyConfig = {
httpEquiv: 0,
// Attributes with mutation methods must be specified in the whitelist
value: 0,
// The following attributes expect boolean values. They must be in
// the whitelist to allow boolean attribute assignment:
autoComplete: 0,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removed autoComplete. It is actually on/off, not true/false. Thanks @syranide!

autoCapitalize: 0,
autoCorrect: 0,
// autoSave allows WebKit/Blink to persist values of input fields on page reloads
autoSave: 0,
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nhunzaker nhunzaker Aug 29, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same deal with autoSave, autoCorrect, and autoCapitalize. I pulled this over from: #10531

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't we special case these so that they work? It's odd when the form <x yyy /> doesn't work like the serialized HTML form.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@nhunzaker nhunzaker Aug 31, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just for context, "on" and "off" were deprecated for autocapitalize in iOS5. Acceptable values 1 are "none", "sentences", "words", and "characters". When no value is given, it defaults to "sentence" for form tags and "none" for password input elements, but otherwise uses the attribute on the related form.

This default value appears to be an empty string, at least when I log out input.outerHTML in Safari. It also enables capitalization, at least in a very quick check in the ios simulator.

Hmm. It is frustrating that true is the assignment type for implicit attributes (like <input autocapitalize />). Maybe in a breaking release of JSX there could be a symbol for it, or use an empty string.

In the mean time, should we want to parse true as an empty string for cases like this? Maybe false should warn. Is this behavior safe to generalize on all attributes that don't have the HAS_STRING_BOOLEAN_VALUE flag?

@aweary is this in line what what you were thinking for boolean attributes?


  1. https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/Attributes.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008058-autocapitalize

Random fun aside: This is my first time using a footnote in a reply on Github. What a time to be alive.

@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ var HTMLDOMPropertyConfig = {
// name warnings.
Properties: {
allowFullScreen: HAS_BOOLEAN_VALUE,
// IE only true/false iFrame attribute
// https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms533072(v=vs.85).aspx
allowTransparency: HAS_BOOLEAN_VALUE,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is adding HAS_BOOLEAN_VALUE always safe? It changes semantics (falsy get removed). Are any of these actually true by default?

Should we keep using this flag or should we introduce a new one?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, darn it. Yes. We need a new flag.

@@ -11,6 +11,10 @@

'use strict';

var DOMProperty = require('DOMProperty');

var HAS_BOOLEAN_VALUE = DOMProperty.injection.MUST_USE_PROPERTY;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixing this up shortly.

// autoSave allows WebKit/Blink to persist values of input fields on page reloads
autoSave: 0,
// Set the string boolean flag to allow the behavior
value: HAS_STRING_BOOLEAN_VALUE,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This must be in here for backwards compatibility.

}
return attributeName + '=' + quoteAttributeValueForBrowser(value);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd love to just lean on DOMProperty.shouldSetAttribute, but reserved props pass through here, and style is in there. Maybe we could remove style from reserved props.

@@ -597,15 +597,15 @@ describe('ReactDOMServerIntegration', () => {
});

// this probably is just masking programmer error, but it is existing behavior.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This comment is now outdated.

expect(e.getAttribute('class')).toBe('true');
itRenders('no className prop with true value', async render => {
const e = await render(<div className={true} />, 1);
expect(e.hasAttribute('class')).toBe(false);
});

// this probably is just masking programmer error, but it is existing behavior.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ditto.

@@ -664,15 +664,15 @@ describe('ReactDOMServerIntegration', () => {
});

// this probably is just masking programmer error, but it is existing behavior.
itRenders('htmlFor prop with true value', async render => {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here too.

expect(e.getAttribute('for')).toBe('true');
itRenders('no htmlFor prop with true value', async render => {
const e = await render(<div htmlFor={true} />, 1);
expect(e.hasAttribute('for')).toBe(false);
});

// this probably is just masking programmer error, but it is existing behavior.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And here.

gaearon and others added 4 commits August 29, 2017 02:08
- Adds exceptions to isCustomAttribute for dashed SVG elements
- Use consistent custom element check across all modules
@nhunzaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Need to decide if aria- and data- should take booleans. (Presumably yes?)

My vote is yes. There should be no danger here, and it is the behavior on 15.x

'font-face-src': true,
'font-face-uri': true,
'missing-glyph': true,
};
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Didn't see the namespace work. Cool. This is inferior, I'll rework this.

if (tagName.indexOf('-') >= 0 || props.is != null) {
// TODO: We always have a namespace with fiber. Drop the first
// check when Stack is removed.
return namespace == null || namespace === HTML_NAMESPACE;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@gaearon I moved the namespace check into this module. Stack validates properties before the namespace is assigned to the element, so we don't know if the element is SVG or HTML during initial validations. namespace == null can go away when stack is removed. This also preserves the custom element behavior for 15.x, if that matters.

@@ -2016,7 +2016,7 @@ describe('ReactDOMComponent', () => {
expect(el.hasAttribute('whatever')).toBe(false);

expectDev(console.error.calls.argsFor(0)[0]).toContain(
'Warning: Invalid prop `whatever` on <div> tag',
'Warning: Received `true` for non-boolean attribute `whatever`',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why does it warn about being non-boolean for unknown attributes? It seems like we don't know whether an unknown attribute is actually a boolean attribute or not, so this could lead to false positives.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we can tweak the wording here. But it is intentional that behavior is the same for known and unknown attributes.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In what way is the behavior the same? Known boolean attributes will not warn because of the propertyInfo checks. I'm not sure I understand why we assume unknown attributes being passed booleans are not boolean attributes.

Copy link
Collaborator

@gaearon gaearon Aug 29, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Known boolean attributes will not warn because of the propertyInfo checks.

Yes, that's what I meant. The only ones for which we pass booleans through are the booleans we know. We don't pass booleans through for either known non-booleans or unknowns.

This keeps it unobservable whether a certain non-boolean attribute is known or unknown. Without this guarantee we can't hide the fact that, for example, src was cut from the whitelist. Implementation details start to leak out in the behavior.

Of course that means we can never delete booleans from the whitelist. But that seems like a fair tradeoff.

Copy link
Contributor

@aweary aweary Aug 29, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So how can a user correctly use a boolean attribute that we don't have whitelisted?

I don't think behavior changes in previously-known attributes implies implementation details are leaked; it just means attributes behavior has changed. Which is why this is part of a major release. Why not instead utilize warnings in this major release that would allow us to treat any unknown attribute with boolean values as a boolean attribute in the next?

Of course that means we can never delete booleans from the whitelist. But that seems like a fair tradeoff.

I don't agree that having to maintain a boolean whitelist forever is a fair tradeoff, it introduces the same issues we had with the whitelist in the first place, just with a smaller subset of attributes.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

<div />; // false 
<div bool-attr="" />; // true

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think custom elements should accept booleans coerced to strings neither.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's easy enough for static attribute values but once you have to start dynamically setting and unsetting boolean attributes you have to start switching between "" and null and remember those map to true and false, which is unfortunate.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's when we add them to the whitelist.

There's no consistent pattern for what booleans should do (clear attribute vs "off" vs "false" vs "no"). So we'll always need some whitelist.

In theory we could make the default behavior be whatever has the most attributes following that rule. Do we know for sure which that is?

Copy link
Contributor

@aweary aweary Aug 30, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In my mind the goal is to reduce that inconsistency, which we maintain by coercing booleans to "true" or "on". In the long-term I think it makes sense to require users to be explicit about those enumerated attributes that expect boolean-ish values, and that's something we can add warnings for.

In theory we could make the default behavior be whatever has the most attributes following that rule. Do we know for sure which that is?

Looking at this attribute table in the spec it seems clear that there are far more boolean attributes than there are attributes that accept "true"/"false" or "on"/"off"

@nhunzaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah I see now. That's a bit of a bummer because we get the namespace URI from an argument elsewhere. We only read it directly in setInitialProperties... hmm.

@nhunzaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nope. I'm totally wrong. I'll take a look either way.

@bvaughn bvaughn mentioned this pull request Sep 7, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants