> I think maybe the code intended to return early when tag is handled as there's no point to go further?
You are correct -- if the tag is handled by a Windows 8.1-style callback (i.e., the notification was from this instance, then we shouldn't continue to process the `notificationData`.
P3 since we should fix this, S4 since it's harmless (AFAIK). We have 2 projects that might pick this up: WDBA changes and more background update notifications. Thanks for flagging!
When we address this, here's what I'm thinking of. First, we want to extract the action string from the notification itself rather than passing it on the command line as well. (This might impact relaunching into Firefox from a background task; that remains to be addressed.). Second, I'd like to see the handling of the relaunch actions handled within the alert service itself, so that there's less detail spilling out into `BrowserContentHandler`. (That might be tricky because we want to use the launch process URL handling, but surely there's a way to accommodate both.)
Bug 1880863 Comment 1 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> I think maybe the code intended to return early when tag is handled as there's no point to go further?
You are correct -- if the tag is handled by a Windows 8.1-style callback (i.e., the notification was from this instance), then we shouldn't continue to process the `notificationData`.
P3 since we should fix this, S4 since it's harmless (AFAIK). We have 2 projects that might pick this up: WDBA changes and more background update notifications. Thanks for flagging!
When we address this, here's what I'm thinking of. First, we want to extract the action string from the notification itself rather than passing it on the command line as well. (This might impact relaunching into Firefox from a background task; that remains to be addressed.). Second, I'd like to see the handling of the relaunch actions handled within the alert service itself, so that there's less detail spilling out into `BrowserContentHandler`. (That might be tricky because we want to use the launch process URL handling, but surely there's a way to accommodate both.)