Bugzilla

(In reply to Alexandre LISSY :gerard-majax from comment #14)
> I'm not sure how much we should consider this is just another case of the first instanciation mechanism described in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1480452#c8 ?

Hmm, well the `about:restartrequired` issue, as you have noted, is pretty clearly a result of Bug 1480452. It doesn't seem like this issue particularly affects the way that that bug needs to be fixed, though it does seem to represent a different way to end up in that situation.

As a bit of a side note, I think that I've got some time coming up to dig into that bug. It's going to be a huge job though, and I don't have a lot of resources to tackle it with. So I can't really promise any sort of timeline on making progress.

Even assuming, however, that we got Bug 1480452 fixed, it seems to me that it would mitigate this issue but not fix it. That is to say, you wouldn't see the `about:restartrequired` page, but this original issue would, I believe, remain:

> Expected:
>  A new tab open
> 
> Actual:
>  Error stating Firefox is already running and is unresponsive.

From what I have read in this bug, it sounds like the underlying issue here is this:

>  `xdg-open` is called in a way where it will try to find a remote instance for Firefox but will ultimately fail because of those differences of windowing systems ;

It seems like fixing that would solve both problems. If remoting worked properly in this context, opening the link would result in Firefox opening, remoting into the existing instance of Firefox, and exiting before it had a chance to install updates.

I will, of course, continue to attempt to make progress on Bug 1480452. But I recommend that this issue be solved properly by fixing remoting rather than waiting for a mitigation that is still a long way off. It sounds like the hope was that Bug 1677462 would provide this. But given that it has been marked WONTFIX, perhaps something else should be pursued. I don't really have any suggestions there; that isn't really my area of expertise.

> I'll let you decide whether we should keep this bug open to track this specific case or whether we can just add more infos to your existing description of the issue.

Given that this represents a new activation mechanism for Bug 1677462, I think it makes sense to have a bug open for it, like we have for Bug 1705217.

(In reply to Alexandre LISSY :gerard-majax from comment #14)
> I'm not sure how much we should consider this is just another case of the first instanciation mechanism described in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1480452#c8 ?

Hmm, well the `about:restartrequired` issue, as you have noted, is pretty clearly a result of Bug 1480452. It doesn't seem like this issue particularly affects the way that that bug needs to be fixed, though it does seem to represent a different way to end up in that situation.

As a bit of a side note, I think that I've got some time coming up to dig into that bug. It's going to be a huge job though, and I don't have a lot of resources to tackle it with. So I can't really promise any sort of timeline on making progress.

Even assuming, however, that we got Bug 1480452 fixed, it seems to me that it would mitigate this issue but not fix it. That is to say, you wouldn't see the `about:restartrequired` page, but this original issue would, I believe, remain:

> Expected:
>  A new tab open
> 
> Actual:
>  Error stating Firefox is already running and is unresponsive.

From what I have read in this bug, it sounds like the underlying issue here is this:

>  `xdg-open` is called in a way where it will try to find a remote instance for Firefox but will ultimately fail because of those differences of windowing systems ;

It seems like fixing that would solve both problems. If remoting worked properly in this context, opening the link would result in Firefox opening, remoting into the existing instance of Firefox, and exiting before it had a chance to install updates.

I will, of course, continue to attempt to make progress on Bug 1480452. But I recommend that this issue be solved properly by fixing remoting rather than waiting for a mitigation that is still a long way off. It sounds like the hope was that Bug 1677462 would provide this. But given that it has been marked WONTFIX, perhaps something else should be pursued. I don't really have any suggestions there; that isn't really my area of expertise.

> I'll let you decide whether we should keep this bug open to track this specific case or whether we can just add more infos to your existing description of the issue.

Given that this represents a new activation mechanism for Bug 1480452, I think it makes sense to have a bug open for it, like we have for Bug 1705217.