Fix aggregation of privacy features

[Elchi3]

The data got changed in mdn/browser-compat-data#364 and the aggregation doesn't work well with it: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs#privacy

[wbamberg]

Thanks for fixing this. I noticed it yesterday but didn't have time to look into it.

It seems that the underlying problem is that we're generating tables with depth 1, but these parts of the tree don't have any compat data at depth 1. So an alternative way to fix it is to remove the special-casing for devtools and privacy, and instead generate tables with a depth of 2 (or 10, or...)[1].

The side-effect of that is that we then list compat data for subfeatures like Tab.incognito, but maybe that's not a bad thing?

@Elchi3, what do you think?

[1] on that topic, I wish there was a simple way to say "iterate through all the subfeatures, as deep as you have to". I thought maybe we could have it do if you omit the depth argument, it means that? So depth means, "limit depth to"?

[Elchi3]

It seems that the underlying problem is that we're generating tables with depth 1, but these parts of the tree don't have any compat data at depth 1. So an alternative way to fix it is to remove the special-casing for devtools and privacy, and instead generate tables with a depth of 2 (or 10, or...)[1].

Yes, I thought about just removing special-casing here and just use a depth of 2. But as that adds a lot other things to the tables on the page I was unsure about it and only wanted to provide a quick fix here.
On a second look, just using a depth level of 2 works just fine I think. I can change this to do that. Let me know.

[1] on that topic, I wish there was a simple way to say "iterate through all the subfeatures, as deep as you have to". I thought maybe we could have it do if you omit the depth argument, it means that? So depth means, "limit depth to"?

Yes, likely something we should do. Somewhat out of scope for this hotfix I would say, though.

[wbamberg]

On a second look, just using a depth level of 2 works just fine I think. I can change this to do that. Let me know.

Yes, I think this would be better :).

[wbamberg]

Thanks @Elchi3 !