Bug 1642060 Comment 10 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 Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf] from comment #9)
> 2) When you activate "Clear Autofill Form" the Expiration Month/Year selects don't get cleared

IMO this is fine for now. I don't think it's worth added complexity to do more unless you can use .defaultValue or something simple. I would leave this for a follow-up that's lower priority personally. Some sites don't have unset/empty default values so the month will just reset to 01/January anyways and that's not much better than some other arbitrary value IMO. 

> Matt:
> 
> 1) Do we have heuristics for selecting a credit card type for `<select>`?

See comment 1. We have no heuristics for cc-type, we can only handle autocomplete=cc=type

> 2) Do we have heuristics for resetting expiration month/year `<select>`?

I don't know about how clearing is handled for <select> but the current behaviour in comment 8 sounds correct. I don't think we need "heuristics", clearing deals with fields already filled so the detection would have happened at fill time already.
(In reply to Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf] from comment #9)
> 2) When you activate "Clear Autofill Form" the Expiration Month/Year selects don't get cleared

IMO this is fine for now. I don't think it's worth added complexity to do more unless you can use .defaultValue or something simple. I would leave this for a follow-up that's lower priority personally. Some sites don't have unset/empty default values so the month will just reset to 01/January anyways and that's not much better than some other arbitrary value IMO. 

> Matt:
> 
> 1) Do we have heuristics for selecting a credit card type for `<select>`?

See comment 1. We have no heuristics for cc-type, we can only handle autocomplete=cc=type

> 2) Do we have heuristics for resetting expiration month/year `<select>`?

I don't know about how clearing is handled for <select> but the current behaviour in comment 8 sounds fine. I don't think we need "heuristics", clearing deals with fields already filled so the detection would have happened at fill time already.

Back to Bug 1642060 Comment 10