(In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #6) > (In reply to Tim Nguyen :ntim from comment #4) > > The tricky part here is testing, I unfortunately only have a macOS which makes it tricky to test this. > > So was the original patch also written without testing it? That seems unfortunate... I did have a Linux VM at the time I wrote the patch and did test it there. It unfortunately ran out of disk space and got corrupted, and I haven't had time to setup a new one since. > Anyway, I've put up a patch to deal with this particular issue. Thanks! > can you please re-check your patch in bug 1437641 to see if there are other cases where there used to be validation that is now absent? There's only the port fields in the connection settings, where you can now type in invalid values as a result of bug 1437641, but the input will highlight red like it does in this screenshot if you do so. We were aware of this behaviour change in bug 1437641 comment 15, though I guess it wouldn't hurt to add extra validation on submit or something.
Bug 1585276 Comment 7 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #6) > (In reply to Tim Nguyen :ntim from comment #4) > > The tricky part here is testing, I unfortunately only have a macOS which makes it tricky to test this. > > So was the original patch also written without testing it? That seems unfortunate... I did have a Linux VM at the time I wrote the patch and did test it there. It unfortunately ran out of disk space and got corrupted, and I haven't had time to setup a new one since. > Anyway, I've put up a patch to deal with this particular issue. Thanks! > can you please re-check your patch in bug 1437641 to see if there are other cases where there used to be validation that is now absent? There's only the port fields in the connection settings, where you can now type in invalid values as a result of bug 1437641, but the input will highlight red if you do so. We were aware of this behaviour change in bug 1437641 comment 15, though I guess it wouldn't hurt to add extra validation on submit or something.