-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3873/#review5060
-----------------------------------------------------------



trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/actions/actions_container.js
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/3873/#comment11098>

    Was there a reason you needed to refactor this code?



trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/actions/actions_container.js
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/3873/#comment11099>

    And this?



trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/actions/actions_container.js
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/3873/#comment11100>

    And this?


- Dan


On 2012-02-12 01:46:58, Henry Saputra wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/3873/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2012-02-12 01:46:58)
>
>
> Review request for shindig.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Some of the iterations in the actions_container.js file are using "in" operator without calling hasOwnProperty to make sure its not going up to prototype chain (http://yuiblog.com/blog/2006/09/26/for-in-intrigue/). It causes trouble when executing in some browsers like FF5.
>
> Small cleanup for actual array to just simply used for-loop with index.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
>   trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/actions/actions_container.js 1243090
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3873/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Pass JS unit tests and manual test with common container and action container.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Henry
>
>