Closed
Bug 238137
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
User Agent string in the About Firefox dialog is cut off at the bottom
Categories
(Firefox :: General, defect, P5)
Firefox
General
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: glc_bugs, Assigned: tonglebeak)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: polish, verified1.8, Whiteboard: testrunner)
Attachments
(17 files, 15 obsolete files)
79.26 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
43.23 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
905 bytes,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
93.71 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
4.79 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
112.34 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
3.00 KB,
patch
|
mconnor
:
review+
dveditz
:
superreview+
asa
:
approval1.8rc1+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
43.50 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
371 bytes,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
980 bytes,
patch
|
mconnor
:
review-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
73.18 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
74.08 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
28.61 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
34.55 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
34.56 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
28.56 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
88.52 KB,
image/png
|
Details |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040319 Firefox/0.8.0+ Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040319 Firefox/0.8.0+ The second line of text of the user agent string is cut off by about 1 or 2 px at the bottom. If you select both lines of text a continue moving the mouse downward, the text scrolls up slightly and you can see the bottom of the cut-off parentheses. Just a few builds ago, the user agent was in a scroll box. Now that box is gone (and it looks better because of it). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
WFM 20040320 PC/WinXP
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
I see what you are talking about the ) and / in the bottom line are slightly trimed compared to the ( and / in the top line.
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 240349 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
Bug 240349 has a screenshot from linux with the text cut off significantly more than my screenshot from WinXP. OS->All.
OS: Windows XP → All
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
This bug is in the branch: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040521 Firefox/0.8.0+ blocking1.0?
Flags: blocking1.0?
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
See bug 237804 and bug 234920. The user agent string is actually in a scrolling area...
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Confirming. I am seeeing this on firefox 20040521 on debian sid.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
*** Bug 244739 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•20 years ago
|
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
this should be really simple to fix... The only problem is, that I have no idea what file contains that page!
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #10) > this should be really simple to fix... > > The only problem is, that I have no idea what file contains that page! > http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/browser/base/content/aboutDialog.css#32
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
I found it... but repacking my changes into the chrome/browser.jar/aboutDialog.XUL didn't help.. I suppose I should try the .css ... or maybe the en_US local.. sigh..
Comment 14•20 years ago
|
||
The problem is that the XUL element gets a bunch of internal padding. It gets 2px from the @id-specific rule in browser/base/content/aboutDialog.css and 2px from the <input> generated inside the textbox by XBL (via layout/html/document/src/forms.css). That totals 4px of internal padding, and the textbox's height is set to 2.4em. If 0.4em < 4px, scrolling will happen. I tried counting pixels on my computer and got 9px per line. Therefore 0.4em is ~ 3.6px, which is less than 4px and thus generates scrolling. The fix is just expanding the height of the textbox from 2.4em to 2.6em. I tried 2.5em as well, but that generated scrolling (probably something I missed somewhere - my guess is some effect of <input> border), so I upped it to 2.6em, which is what this patch implements. It's WFM by editing-browser.jar-in-place to test.
Assignee: firefox → jwalden+bmo
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 149609 [details] [diff] [review] Increase height of UA string textbox to avoid scrolling Requesting review from mconnor...
Attachment #149609 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 16•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 251734 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: testrunner http://testrunner.mozilla.org/test.cgi?run_id=242#795
Comment 17•20 years ago
|
||
Heh...this bug seems to have fallen by the wayside. It's a trivial fix for a trivial bug, so by my thinking it's a 1.0 bug. Rerequesting blocking-aviary1.0? per comment 13 (I think it's the correct action here, sorry if it's not) to get this on the radar...
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0- → blocking-aviary1.0?
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: testrunner http://testrunner.mozilla.org/test.cgi?run_id=242#795 → testrunner [have patch]
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•20 years ago
|
||
While the current patch seems to fix the problem in the short term, I think a better long term solution would be to auto-size the height of the about box to accomodate the whole UA string. The current UA string (which is a little weird) is: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040902 Firefox/1.0 PR (NOT FINAL) This string actually wraps to a third line, and must be scrolled even though there is no scrolling mechanism. Even though this string won't last long, UA strings with a builder or vendor comment added in would probably have the same problem.
Comment 19•20 years ago
|
||
It seems to be theme-dependent, I see this when using the default winstripe theme, but not with the theme I am currently using (Noia: http://www.deviantart.com/view/4266778/). I did not try to see what the author did to correct this.
Comment 20•20 years ago
|
||
mconnor, can you review. lets get this in quick and out of the way if we are going to take it.
Comment 21•20 years ago
|
||
think that we are going to be too overloaded to get to this for 1.0... -minus blocker nomination
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0? → blocking-aviary1.0-
Comment 22•20 years ago
|
||
Truly pitiful that this wasn't fixed before 1.0.
Comment 23•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 269314 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 24•20 years ago
|
||
This seems to have worsened on the trunk since the merging with the branch! Can anyone confirm? I am using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041204 Firefox/1.0+ and there seem to be more lines missing than before.
Comment 25•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 254168 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 26•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 274262 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 27•20 years ago
|
||
Setting the nomination flag to block to bring this bug onto the radar. I know that this is a "cosmetic" problem only but... + the fix is a one liner only! + the glitch is pretty obvious (exspecially on Linux, but on Windows, too) + it fell off the radar already one time
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1?
Comment 28•20 years ago
|
||
blocking is "we won't ship with this" not an attention flag.
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1? → blocking-aviary1.1-
Comment 29•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 255438 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 30•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 283819 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 31•19 years ago
|
||
shame, shame
Comment 32•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #31) > shame, shame 3 screenshots have already been attached to this bug showing what the problem is. No need for more.
Comment 33•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 234920 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 34•19 years ago
|
||
theres already a patch for this. can someone review it and check it in?
Comment 35•19 years ago
|
||
If someone is looking for an artistic way of fixing this bug -- looking for something that is much more than just a plain fix ;-) -- then you may try my Firefox extension at http://Mithgol.Ru/Mozilla/Firefox/
Comment 36•19 years ago
|
||
i think it would just be better to check in the patch. i dont think i could stand a communist about box.
Comment 37•19 years ago
|
||
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050322 Firefox/1.0+ The patch in comment 14 fixes this problem for me.
Comment 38•19 years ago
|
||
it fixes it for everybody. its just that _nobody_ wants to check it in.
Reporter | ||
Comment 39•19 years ago
|
||
I think the comment that this "fixes it for everybody" is a baseless claim. So far as I can tell, everyone who has chimed in that the patch fixes the problem has been a Windows user. The last two posted screenshots are from a Linux and OS/2 user whose useragent string takes more than 2 lines, cutting off a significant portion of the string. A >2-line useragent string isn't going to fit in a box with 2.6em height (as the patch implements). Notice the ifdef for Mac, allowing 3 lines for the Mac string. Using an ifdef for each platform seems like a messy solution. As I mentioned in comment 18, a better solution probably needs to be devised to accomodate users using a variety of text sizes. That said, the current patch would be a reasonable band-aid for Windows users, fixing the trivial problem for scores of users without making it worse for anyone. Please don't use bugzilla as your personal whining forum. If you don't have any useful additional information to add--such as a better patch, or insight into how this affects various platforms--don't say anything at all.
Comment 40•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #39) > The last two posted screenshots are from a Linux and > OS/2 user whose useragent string takes more than 2 lines, cutting off a > significant portion of the string. A >2-line useragent string isn't going to fit > That said, the current patch would be a reasonable band-aid for Windows users, > fixing the trivial problem for scores of users without making it worse for anyone. I think a better interim patch would be to just remove the ifdef logic and make it 3.8em for all platforms until a real fix is devised. If we are going to do a temporary band-aid, it should not be a windows only band-aid. Making it 3.8em for all platforms would fix this for Linux and non-official builders of Windows who add there own buildinfo to the string.
Comment 41•19 years ago
|
||
William, could you provide a patch? I agree that this would be the best interim solution. Linux should be fixed as well.
Updated•19 years ago
|
QA Contact: bugs.mano
Comment 42•19 years ago
|
||
Giving review a shot. Sorry if I'm stepping on any toes, just would like to see a fix checked in soon.
Attachment #179047 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 43•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 287881 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 44•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 289239 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 45•19 years ago
|
||
height: 2.4em; is too small for XP it needs to be at least 2.6em.
Comment 46•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #45) > height: 2.4em; is too small for XP it needs to be at least 2.6em. The proposed patch sets it to 3.8em on all platforms.
Comment 47•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #17) > Heh...this bug seems to have fallen by the wayside. It's a trivial fix for a > trivial bug, so by my thinking it's a 1.0 bug. I don't think this is a trivial bug. users are asked many times to tell or copy there useragent for troubleshooting purposes, and putting it inside a box that has no scrolling can make it complicated for novice users to figure (the ones that usually need the troubleshooting). not everyone knows the trick of "put your'e mouse at the begining of sentence, click the mouse and drag down until you see the end" ;) i think the severity of this bug should really be normal.
Comment 48•19 years ago
|
||
The fix to make it just always have room for 3 lines may be trivial, but now that the fix for bug 238137 has landed, which generalizes the method for adding application defined fields to the user-agent string, the code really needs to be fixed to adjust the size to account for an arbitrary length user agent string.
Comment 49•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #48) > The fix to make it just always have room for 3 lines may be trivial, but now > that the fix for bug 238137 has landed, which generalizes the method for adding Sorry for bugspam. I mant to say the fix for bug 274928.
Comment 50•19 years ago
|
||
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050417 Firefox/1.0+ ->WFM This was resolved by Bug 289217
Comment 51•19 years ago
|
||
Not to be a stickler, but it is still cut off, just now only the bottom tips of the foward slashes.
Comment 52•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #51) > Not to be a stickler, but it is still cut off, just now only the bottom tips of > the foward slashes. I agree, it's still a bit cut off.. but I think it still depends on the fix given by bug 289217.. so it was probably supposed to be fixed there again.
Reporter | ||
Comment 53•19 years ago
|
||
Still not fixed on WinXP 96dpi. Mine now looks exactly the same as attachment 144455 [details] (it had gotten worse, this is back to how it was when I reported the bug). Descenders below the baseline are still cut off. Select the UA string and drag down; the text scrolls about 2 pixels. That behavior means the area alotted for this text is not tall enough. It's close, but not quite. Did the checkin from bug 289217 improve this bug on any other platforms or logical resolutions?
Comment 54•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #18) > While the current patch seems to fix the problem in the short term, I think a > better long term solution would be to auto-size the height of the about box to > accomodate the whole UA string. Is it possible to do this, rather than just picking an arbitrary height?
Assignee | ||
Comment 55•19 years ago
|
||
This replaces the set em amount with auto instead, so it turns out as height:auto;. I have tested and ran it on this current build (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050419 Firefox/1.0+), and I no longer have any kind of scrolling or chopped off parts of the user agent string.
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181270 -
Flags: review?(slunta)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181270 -
Flags: review?(slunta)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181270 -
Flags: review?(slunta)
Attachment #181270 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 56•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 181270 [details] [diff] [review] Let firefox automatically calculate the appropriate box size this is probably better, but someone needs to submit this as a diff, not a whole source file
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #179047 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #179047 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 57•19 years ago
|
||
Here is a diff based on the new patch submitted earlier. Hope this is fine.
Attachment #181292 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 58•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #57) > Created an attachment (id=181292) [edit] > Diff based on new submitted patch. > > Here is a diff based on the new patch submitted earlier. Hope this is fine. This patch seems to do the trick.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181270 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #181270 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 59•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 181292 [details] [diff] [review] Diff based on new submitted patch. Since height: auto is the default isn't specifying it redundant? Also isn't overflow: hidden unnecessary without an explicit height? On this Win98 Trunk build the patch leaves a 1cm white gap below the UA box, it looks like the textbox is taking up 3 rows of room even though it only appears to be using 2 rows.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1- → blocking-aviary1.1?
Comment 60•19 years ago
|
||
mozillafirebird@gmail.com: Please read comment 28.
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1? → blocking-aviary1.1-
Comment 61•19 years ago
|
||
theres already a patch waiting to be review. no release should be shipped with patches waiting to be reviewed. that was my rationale for renominating it.
Comment 62•19 years ago
|
||
Assignee: jwalden+bmo → gavin.sharp
Attachment #149609 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #181292 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #181630 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181292 -
Attachment is obsolete: false
Attachment #181292 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #149609 -
Attachment is obsolete: false
Attachment #149609 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #149609 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181292 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•19 years ago
|
Hardware: PC → All
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox1.1
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Comment 63•19 years ago
|
||
what does adjusting the margin do? the extra line done at the bottom is still there for me.
Comment 64•19 years ago
|
||
I have done some playing around with this by just overriding these values in my userChrome.css file. The conlusion I have reached is that (at least in windows) the userAgent textbox always ends up being exactly 3 text lines high if you do not specify a height. The best I have been able to do is to make it look better by changing the padding on the detailsBox to 1px. I think the problem here is that the problem is in the XUL for the aboutDialog and we are trying to compensate in the css file. I currently have this in aboutDialog.css in by profile chrome folder. #detailsBox { padding: 8px 10px 1px 8px !important; } #userAgent { margin: 3px 10px 3px 5px !important; background-color: #FFFFFF !important; color: #000000 !important; padding: 1px 0px 1px 3px !important; heigth: auto !important; width: auto !important; border: none !important; -moz-appearance: none !important; }
Comment 65•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #64) > heigth: auto !important; Hmm. think I need a spellchecker. Obviously,height would work better here. :-)
Comment 66•19 years ago
|
||
William A. Gianopoulos, your solution in comment #64 is perfect! It's better than the the currently proposed patch (attachment 181630 [details] [diff] [review]). If you can, make a new patch please do.
Comment 67•19 years ago
|
||
Attachment #181630 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181630 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 68•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #67) > Created an attachment (id=181682) [edit] > William's approach > Gavin, can you set some review flags on it? This patch is so simple and safe (all it does is change some CSS for the about box) that I hope that it gets reviewed, checked in 1.8b2 and forgotten :)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181682 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P5
Whiteboard: testrunner [have patch] → [patch-r?] testrunner
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1- → blocking-aviary1.1+
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1+ → blocking-aviary1.1-
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8b2?
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8b2?
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8b2?
Comment 69•19 years ago
|
||
Please, stop requesting blocking status for such a minor detail. This is not going to block any releases.
Flags: blocking1.8b2?
Assignee | ||
Comment 70•19 years ago
|
||
Here's a method which I think is better (as it'd support any user agent) Edit the aboutDialog.js file to include this function function measure() { var container = document.getElementById("userAgent"); //Math.ceil(container.offsetWidth/aboutDialog.style.offsetWidth); } Doing that, we can get the width of the useragent text if we let firefox automatically calculate the width of the useragent label. Then, we can divide the length by how many pixels wide the textbox is for the useragent, and round that up to determine how many lines it should be. Set the height using javascript based on how many lines the useragent will be. If anyone's following me and thinks this should be how it is, please let me know and I'll create it, as this will support any useragent set there.
Comment 71•19 years ago
|
||
setting the height to auto, which is the current solution, would do the exact same thing, just more simply.
Reporter | ||
Comment 72•19 years ago
|
||
This is two screenshots applying the changes from attachment 181682 [details] [diff] [review]. One is Windows XP set to extra large fonts; the default useragent string takes 4 lines at this size, forcing vertical scrolling. The other is Windows XP with normal sized fonts, but with a very long custom user agent string. It also takes 4 lines, and again forces vertical scrolling. Any time the useragent is longer than 3 lines, this patch creates scrollbars since it removes overflow:hidden. It's also possible to get horizonal scrollbars if you include a very long word in a custom user agent string. I personally don't think scrollbars are so bad to accomodate strings longer than the default, but should never occur using the default string. Since this doesn't fix the default situation for Windows users with extra-large fonts (or probably any other system at a large font size like 120dpi), I don't think the current patch is really a "fix."
Comment 73•19 years ago
|
||
ok, ur right. go ahead and develope the patch and ill try it out.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Assignee: gavin.sharp → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Whiteboard: [patch-r?] testrunner → testrunner
Target Milestone: Firefox1.1 → ---
Reporter | ||
Comment 74•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #70) Set a reasonable maximum height in the calculation, so the About box can't be resized to be larger than the screen height.
Assignee | ||
Comment 75•19 years ago
|
||
The only problem I'm encountering, and is a big one, is that the js doesn't seem to want to calculate the offsetWidth. I have tried getting the offsetWidth from other elements, such as the client box, but it returns as undefined (and yes, I do have experience with using offsetWidth and offsetHeight attributes). If anyone knows why, please tell me.
Assignee | ||
Comment 76•19 years ago
|
||
Alright, I seem to have gotten it for normal UA strings. Am I to compensate also for obnoxiously long strings, including those that force the useragent box to scroll horizontally? If so, I'll need to make some adjustments: if not, it should be fine the way it is.
Assignee | ||
Comment 77•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #76) > Alright, I seem to have gotten it for normal UA strings. > > Am I to compensate also for obnoxiously long strings, including those that force > the useragent box to scroll horizontally? If so, I'll need to make some > adjustments: if not, it should be fine the way it is. Example Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050508 Firefox/1.0+ the brown fox jumps over the moon the brown fox jumps over the moon That useragent works fine. Here's one that's currently throwing it off Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050508 Firefox/1.0+omgomogmog omgomogmomgomgomogmogmoogmogogmogmgomgogmomgogmogmogomgoog What happens is that it forces the textbox to scroll and such, and also can throw off calculations by having one word take up 20 cols, and the next taking up 45, which causes the next word to be printed on the next line, skipping 40 cols, 2/3 of pixel space, which throws off calculations. If I really need to make something to support retarded UAs, I can make up a separate algorithm for them if a very long words are present.
Comment 78•19 years ago
|
||
I have this problem with a default install of windows, no font changes. As illustrated in the first screenshot. Really makes firefox look tacky.
Comment 79•19 years ago
|
||
i dont think u need to compensate for horizontal scrolling. what u have works fine. now u can just post the patch so we can all try it out and it can be checked in.
Assignee | ||
Comment 80•19 years ago
|
||
Allow me time after school today to get CVS, and I'll submit the patch. I tested it in different screen resolutions, and it works. Just hang tight.
Assignee | ||
Comment 81•19 years ago
|
||
This calculates how many lines the box will be: makes a hidden box, calculates the width of that, and divides it by the useragent's box. That number is rounded up, and then divided by 1.2. That number is then set as the height of the useragent box, preventing overflow. Note that I have not tested this on screen resolutions other than 800x600 and 1024x768, but by the logic, there should be no problem with any others. Sorry if this patch wasn't put together correctly, but it's my first one.
Comment 82•19 years ago
|
||
the patch shows up as jibberish.
Assignee | ||
Comment 83•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #82) > the patch shows up as jibberish. It's a .tar.gz file, since it required multiple files being editted.
Assignee | ||
Comment 84•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 183445 [details] [diff] [review] patch to support any legit useragent changing mime-type
Assignee | ||
Comment 85•19 years ago
|
||
Dammit, the mime-type won't change... Would it be acceptable to submit the patch as one file, separated in three sections, a section for each of the editted files?
Comment 86•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #85) > Dammit, the mime-type won't change... > > Would it be acceptable to submit the patch as one file, separated in three > sections, a section for each of the editted files? How about just creating a diff of the three changed files like you're supposed to? http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/life-cycle.html
Assignee | ||
Comment 87•19 years ago
|
||
I did create diffs, I just thought I had to pack them all into one file. Are you saying to submit all three separately?
Comment 88•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #87) > I did create diffs, I just thought I had to pack them all into one file. Are you > saying to submit all three separately? No, you need to provide a single patch that includes all three files, created using cvs diff, preferably with the -up8 parameters.
Comment 89•19 years ago
|
||
No, I'm saying to combine them into one diff for all three files (though you can also just submit all three individually - it's not as elegant, but it would work). When you do the diff command, you can list multiple files to be diffed.
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #183445 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 90•19 years ago
|
||
Sorry about the mess guys.
Comment 91•19 years ago
|
||
This fixes the issues with applying the patch to the source tree.
Attachment #183455 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #183460 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 92•19 years ago
|
||
I should also note that I cleaned up some whitespace issues with the previous patch. Other than that, it's still the same patch as was previously submitted.
Comment 93•19 years ago
|
||
Good news is that the patch appears to work.
Comment 94•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #93) > Good news is that the patch appears to work. I take that back. I set font sizes to Extra Large in the Display control panel and I still get vertical scrollbars on the about dialog useragent string
Assignee | ||
Comment 95•19 years ago
|
||
Here's the problem that I can see out of it: Whenever you set to extra large fonts, the big fonts end up creating large spaces that won't show in the hidden box, but shows up on the useragent box (if any gets what I'm saying). The only other solution I can think of, and probably might be the best, is to iterate through each token in the useragent, and add up the lengths of the tokens until the next token will be greater than the useragent box width. This shouldn't have any performance issues, so if that's alright, I can get to work on that.
Assignee | ||
Comment 96•19 years ago
|
||
One more question: does anyone know if the text wraps because of the number of columns in the textbox, the width of it, or any of the two?
Comment 97•19 years ago
|
||
any of the two
Assignee | ||
Comment 98•19 years ago
|
||
This version iterates through the string to get the length of each piece of the useragent, and in turn calculates the height from it. The problem is that is it not precise (I can't help it, I've tried everything to make it so), so anything past 4 lines will result in an expanding blank section under the useragent string (but the useragent shouldn't be that fricking long anyways). Unless I missed something, the DPI still affects it: I dont' know what to do about this! I'm getting pixel calculations for each token of the useragent, and still am not getting the correct height in the end (unless it's my computer). If someone else can test it with a 120 DPI, please let me know if it works for you or not. If this doesn't work, I don't know what else to tell you guys or to do: just living with the overflow for high DPI is the only solution I can think of if this really does fail.
Assignee | ||
Comment 99•19 years ago
|
||
I think this is the one...after reading comment 14, I put the padding into the calculations as Jeff describes. Also, I adjusted the height to be a bit more to help compensate for 120 dpi, but I think this is the one.
Attachment #183661 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 100•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 183725 [details] [diff] [review] compensates for 120 DPI Mr. Connor, your take on this?
Attachment #183725 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Updated•19 years ago
|
QA Contact: bugs.mano → general
Comment 101•19 years ago
|
||
Thats a lot of code for a user agent string... man, who would have thought how fustrating this could be.
Comment 102•19 years ago
|
||
Why does the window need to be so small as to cause this ugliness to persist so long and be so difficult to fix? Just make it bigger! It's not like this window is going to get left up in anyone's way any length of time.
Assignee | ||
Comment 103•19 years ago
|
||
Calm down, the patch is pending review.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8b3?
Comment 104•19 years ago
|
||
Please stop asking for blocking status, this bug won't block any release.
Flags: blocking1.8b3?
Comment 105•19 years ago
|
||
why wont anyone review the patch?
Comment 106•19 years ago
|
||
Someone almost certainly will review the patch. The question is when - people are busy and this is hardly an issue which needs to be fixed for alpha releases. Adding more comments is not going to speed things up.
Assignee | ||
Comment 107•19 years ago
|
||
Has anyone else tested it, so I know if it's alright or if it needs work?
Comment 108•19 years ago
|
||
ive tested it and it needs work.
Comment 109•19 years ago
|
||
sorry, i meant to say that it wfm. disregard my previous comment.
Comment 110•19 years ago
|
||
Here's an interesting thing I found: this bug still exists no matter how large the window is. Example: chrome://browser/content/aboutDialog.xul Go to that. The ua string is _still_ cut off, even though it has _far_ more space than it would ever need... And we have a patch, let's get it friggin' checked in already; I can assure you that it won't break anything...
Assignee | ||
Comment 111•19 years ago
|
||
Just fixed some whitespace problems, and changed the function name from "measure" to "measureUADimensions" for easier understanding.
Attachment #183725 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #187035 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #183725 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Assignee | ||
Comment 112•19 years ago
|
||
Yeah, I'd like to kinda shoot myself over making that hack that does about as much as this <_< The problem with william's approach was the extra padding still left in it...this patch will work with 120 dpi. The default string will NOT scroll; more than likely longer custom strings will, but for now, the default does not scroll.
Attachment #187035 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #188060 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #187035 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 113•19 years ago
|
||
isnt this patch a step backward? a previous patch calculated how big the box should be. this is back to the beginning where it only works with the default. i think the best patch so far would be the 2005-06-22 patch.
Assignee | ||
Comment 114•19 years ago
|
||
Many have said it was overkill. I kinda have to agree somewhat: i understand why you want most strings to be accomodated to this, but when it comes down to it, this is a very simple fix, and if someone knows enough to change their useragent, then they should know enough about the risks of breaking features.
Comment 115•19 years ago
|
||
true. ok, this patch has my blessing. hopefully, this will get checked in in time for 1.1a2.
Comment 116•19 years ago
|
||
None of the other patches in this bug have gotten a review, so why is there any reason to believe that this one will. Common mconner or anyone else who is qualified to review this simple patch to fix a long-standing bug with 62 votes!!
Comment 117•19 years ago
|
||
Yeesh, let's get some perspective here. This is not a major bug. Its a very trivial UI bit in a little-used dialog. It'll get done, but its not like its critical to an alpha to make sure the bottom couple of pixels aren't cut off. The last fix is probably right, but it'll come in time. I think a lot of people who have commented in this bug should read http://www.bikeshed.com/
Comment 118•19 years ago
|
||
if its so trivial why dont u just check it in? the possibility of fallout is near zero. actually, it is zero. a checkin would be short and sweet. and then the 62 of us would all go away.
Reporter | ||
Comment 119•19 years ago
|
||
Screenshot of Attachment 188060 [details] [diff].
Looks perfect using normal fonts on WinXP (luna). Large fonts doesn't scroll,
but leaves little space between the UA string at the gray space at the bottom
of the dialog. Extra large fonts causes scrolling with a scrollbar with the
default string; the scrollbar extends all the way down to the top of the gray
space.
It's not bad, but could be better. How cosmetically perfect do we want this for
users using larger-than-normal fonts?
Coldfusion: don't get your panties in a wad. I filed this bug and I would
prefer that it be fixed right; time isn't critical here. This is trivial and
cosmetic. Did you even *try* the patch in any configurations other than your
normal browsing configuration before giving the patch your "blessing"? Did you
try it at all?
I'm not a good enough coder to help out here, so I'm grateful that others are
willing to take the time to submit patches for such a barely-noticeable
cosmetic bug that I happened to notice and file. You don't fix a hole in the
wall by hanging a picture over it. Pipe down until you're ready to do real
testing, or ready to submit a better patch yourself.
Comment 120•19 years ago
|
||
ive tested this patch. ive tested every patch since the first one. it definitely works. and i would rather it be reviewed and turned down than not reviewed at all. just like judicial nominees, every patch should have an up or down vote.
Assignee | ||
Comment 121•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #119) > Created an attachment (id=188735) [edit] > Screenshots with "css fix" > > Screenshot of Attachment 188060 [details] [diff] [edit]. > > Looks perfect using normal fonts on WinXP (luna). Large fonts doesn't scroll, > but leaves little space between the UA string at the gray space at the bottom > of the dialog. Extra large fonts causes scrolling with a scrollbar with the > default string; the scrollbar extends all the way down to the top of the gray > space. > > It's not bad, but could be better. How cosmetically perfect do we want this for > users using larger-than-normal fonts? > > Coldfusion: don't get your panties in a wad. I filed this bug and I would > prefer that it be fixed right; time isn't critical here. This is trivial and > cosmetic. Did you even *try* the patch in any configurations other than your > normal browsing configuration before giving the patch your "blessing"? Did you > try it at all? > > I'm not a good enough coder to help out here, so I'm grateful that others are > willing to take the time to submit patches for such a barely-noticeable > cosmetic bug that I happened to notice and file. You don't fix a hole in the > wall by hanging a picture over it. Pipe down until you're ready to do real > testing, or ready to submit a better patch yourself. > Look, we can't satisfy everyone here. The js hack I had earlier submitted might work, but this could cause a performance hit to other UI threads that could very well be present, so it's best IMO not to use the hack. How many people do you know use extra large fonts? Better yet, what's the global percentage of people who do use extra large fonts, to large fonts? I'd say that if someone can't see their screen well, they probably would change their screen resolution as they most likely would also have trouble seeing images and such. While I believe something should be checked in before 1.1, it's not that much of a big deal, and hell, there might be a perfect way to fixing this without making bloated hacks, that could be found between now and then, so please let's all ease up a bit on this. If a perfect way is found, then it will be submitted, and it will please even more. I'll possibly spend a bit more time on this in hopes of trying to get it to work for all cases, but no one feature can satisfy all. Please understand this.
Comment 122•19 years ago
|
||
my point is just that a temporary solution is still a solution. we can use either the css fix or the hack until a more permanent solution can be found.
Comment 123•19 years ago
|
||
Why use the hack when you can use a simple solution that fixes the problem for 99% of people with zero risk. How long would it take for a reviewer(not saying any names) to slap on the patch, verify that it works and give a thumbs up. It's not like this is a major patch that requires thorough testing... Anyways, sorry for the bugspam, I'm signing out of this bug for good.
Comment 124•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #121) > How many people do you know use extra large fonts? Better yet, what's the global > percentage of people who do use extra large fonts, to large fonts? I'd say that > if someone can't see their screen well, they probably would change their screen > resolution as they most likely would also have trouble seeing images and such. > In the long run, as pixels become smaller (as they should) then people will need to scale up font sizes up, and (especially on LCDs) people should not be lowering their resolution because that would decrease smoothness of the fonts, make it so large images don't fit anymore, and reduce the sharpness of vector images (therefore eliminating the benefits of higher resolutions). People will also likely take advantage of greater resolution and start working more and more with high resolution images so that they will look better as well. I'm not saying what to do about the patch, but I am pointing out an error in what you said. Yes, the percentage is small, but computers are *not* going to stay at 800x600 (or are you thinking 1024x768?) forever -- pixels will continue to get closer together and smaller at the same time, as well as (most, except for laptops) displays getting bigger.
Assignee | ||
Comment 125•19 years ago
|
||
After exploring many more options, including <html:div>, there just doesn't seem to be any other way but the js hack. <html:div> is my best hope, but it will not allow copying/pasting, or any selection. If I'm wrong in there not being any other element other than <textbox> that will allow copying of its innerHTML (the text), then please let me know. Other than that, the css fix is the only plausible solution from my POV.
Comment 126•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 291007 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 127•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 301040 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 128•19 years ago
|
||
Just cleaning up a few things, like style attributes and the <html:iframe>. Still holds same css fix (which I'm assuming is what'll be applied).
Attachment #188060 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #188060 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 129•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 309174 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-aviary2.0?
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0.8?
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-aviary2.0?
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0.8?
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #181682 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #183460 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 130•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 189657 [details] [diff] [review] cleanup Clearing the last of the obsolete review requests.
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Assignee | ||
Comment 131•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 189657 [details] [diff] [review] cleanup Still applies cleanly for me. Re-requesting
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 132•19 years ago
|
||
indeed. still applies. i have it applied to my 2005100706 trunk build at this moment.
Comment 133•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 144455 [details]
Screenshot illustrating bug
This screenshot no longer represents the current non-subtle effects. Nice job,
though.
Attachment #144455 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8rc1?
Reporter | ||
Comment 134•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #133) > (From update of attachment 144455 [details]) > This screenshot no longer represents the current non-subtle effects. Eh? Mine still looks *exactly* like this (without the patch, with a current nightly).
Comment 135•19 years ago
|
||
without the patch, the bottom of the user agent is cut off. if u click and drag down, ull notice the user agent shift up a little bit. this fixes that. it used to be worse.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8rc1? → blocking1.8rc1-
Comment 136•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #135) > without the patch, the bottom of the user agent is cut off. if u click and drag > down, ull notice the user agent shift up a little bit. this fixes that. it used > to be worse. For me--Windows XP, normal size fonts--the UA wraps to a third line so I see no Firefox version information at all. The UA area is scrollable, but without any scrollbars anyone with a system like mine won't know to scroll it.
Comment 137•19 years ago
|
||
it doesnt wrap to a third line, but it is cut off some, for me. try applying the patch. it should allow more room. if it still needs scrolling, it should have scrollbars.
Assignee | ||
Comment 138•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 189657 [details] [diff] [review] cleanup Let's see if a dev can at least acknowledge this is a very safe, working patch :)
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: superreview?(dveditz)
Comment 139•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 189657 [details] [diff] [review] cleanup This patch works great for me. Still wraps to three lines with "Firefox/1.4.1" (only two in 1.4) but all three are shown. This is more of a symbolic sr=, in browser you need only a module owner r= (and must have that r=).
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: superreview+
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: superreview?(dveditz)
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: review+
Comment 140•19 years ago
|
||
This patch is not likely to break anything. I have been building my "amano" builds with this and with all prior patches since FX 1.0 and no regression has shown up. So please ask for the approval for RC1 now. It is already late in the game. Aaron?
Comment 141•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 189657 [details] [diff] [review] cleanup Asking for approval for RC1 since a few people have said and I can confirm no regressions have been introduced by this low risk patch.
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: approval1.8rc1?
Updated•19 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → dveditz
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #189657 -
Flags: approval1.8rc1? → approval1.8rc1+
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Assignee: dveditz → tonglebeak
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Comment 142•19 years ago
|
||
Fix checked into trunk and 1.8 branch
Comment 143•19 years ago
|
||
after over a year struggling, we can finally lay this one to rest.
Comment 144•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #142) > Fix checked into trunk and 1.8 branch So, I'd assume that it will be available as part of the 20051012 nightly?
Comment 145•19 years ago
|
||
I had only been seeing this on Linux, But it looks good with a branch build from 1013
Keywords: fixed1.8 → verified1.8
Comment 146•19 years ago
|
||
It's almost perfect; still scrolls about 1 or 2 px. Otherwise, yes, working quite fine. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-CA; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20051013 Firefox/1.6a1 ID:2005101304
Comment 147•19 years ago
|
||
As I said, this bug is still prominent, don't know why it's marked as fixed. Attaching a screenshot of said problem, although this might have to do with another bug such as Bug 283697, although there might be some super-bug that deals with "window sizes calculated incorrectly for certain themes", but I can't find that bug if it exists at the moment. If this is due to that, I'd suggest that we just re-open this, stick a dependson flag for that bug, and have this probably be fixed with that fix.
Comment 148•19 years ago
|
||
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20051020 Firefox/1.6a1
Status: RESOLVED -> REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED -> ---
I still see this too. It's better, but I see a similar result to attachment 200515 [details].
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 149•19 years ago
|
||
WFM
Comment 150•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #149) > WFM > OS/Build/DPI/etc?
Comment 151•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #150) > (In reply to comment #149) > > WFM > > > > OS/Build/DPI/etc? > Win XP, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051023 Firefox/1.5 ID:2005102310, 96dpi, 1152x864
Comment 152•19 years ago
|
||
Apparently this bug is only "fixed" for the Luna theme or something. I think Firefox or the Core needs better support for the WM-supplied padding values and whatnot, regardless of OS.
Comment 153•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #152) > Apparently this bug is only "fixed" for the Luna theme or something. this works on classic. it works for me on windows xp, 1024x768 at 96dpi. this patch works on at atleast: 800x600 1024x768 1280x1024 96dpi normal sized text large text things that are still broken: 120dpi extra large text apparently linux (linux ua is longer than windows, thats the only reason i see for it not working on linux) all of the patches between "patch to support any legit useragent" and "fixed a whitespace problem, changed measuring function name" use javascript to make the about box big enough for whatever useragent you have. we went back to the simple css fix because it was simpler. Comment #113 is where i ask, and it is explained why we went with the css fix. i would be happy with the js solution. it works with 120dpi, extra large text, and the linux user agent. it fixes all the problems. not sure if its bit rotted, but if its not, then request review for the old patch.
Comment 154•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #153) > apparently linux (linux ua is longer than windows, thats the only reason i see > for it not working on linux) sorry to bug spam, but the windows ua is longer than the linux ua. my mistake.
Comment 155•19 years ago
|
||
Okay, this is an example of why using the definite dimensions is bad m'kay. As you can see, the excess whitespace is not used, well, at all, but if you do stretch its width, it does indeed expand. What I would propose is just having the about dialog be clear'd to the next line, and then have it stretch as far as it can go down without stretching the window (i.e. percentages instead of absolutes). The height can be dynamically changed via a small JS hack that sets its height using the remaining space available. Or even more simply put: make the damn about box a tad taller...
Comment 156•19 years ago
|
||
After messing around with the aboutDialog.css file, I have come to the conclusion that this bug has to be due to some XUL/CSS bug or some other layout-related bug. The text box's dimensions are calculated incorrectly from the CSS attributes given. I can't use the DOM Inspector to check it since it won't re-enable itself for me due to some other probable bug, but if someone else would like to check it out and let us know the results... I'll see if I can make a testcase that demonstrates that better.
Comment 157•19 years ago
|
||
Basically, I swapped the margins and removed excess padding. The userAgent still lines up correctly, but now it fits within the dialog without scrolling. This is mainly to address the odd issue in the Linux build, so I'll need someone to test out the patch (it was made with "diff", so just use "patch") on win32 and mac and such.
Attachment #201262 -
Flags: review?
Comment 158•19 years ago
|
||
Here's a screenshot of the patch in Linux.
Attachment #200515 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 159•19 years ago
|
||
Just a small note for Matt: if you open the DOM Inspector before the about box, it'll function perfectly. I'd help with this, but I'm running at a non-standard DPI, so window dimensions are always wrong for me.
Attachment #201262 -
Flags: review?
Attachment #201262 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 160•19 years ago
|
||
Just noticed an alignment problem, fixed it with this patch. This also has the cvs diff header info, so now you can diff it with the source a bit easier.
Attachment #201263 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #201266 -
Flags: review?
Attachment #201266 -
Flags: review?
Attachment #201266 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #201266 -
Flags: approval1.8rc2?
Comment 161•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 201266 [details] [diff] [review] Better patch of previous with extra cvs diff info included. Er er ee oo, how was I able to grant myself a review and whatnot? I'm not a developer... I know, I'll ask the guy who has better things to do than review a CSS patch! If someone else would be better to ask for review, let me know.
Attachment #201266 -
Flags: review+ → review?(mconnor)
Comment 162•19 years ago
|
||
Tested in 1.5rc1: win32 1024x768 96 DPI OS/2 1280x960 120 DPI Linux 1792x1344 160 DPI I couldn't find out what is responsible for the height of #userAgent, so I simply gave it a minimum to get rid of the scroll at high resolutions. Also, as you can see from before & after screenshots coming up, the right margin now is as little as literal 0, so I added some. This is much better than what we have now.
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: superreview?
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: review?
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: superreview?(mconnor)
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: superreview?
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: review?
Comment 163•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 164•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 165•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 166•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 167•19 years ago
|
||
previous fix did not fix OS/2
Comment 168•19 years ago
|
||
Approval should be requested once a patch has the necessary reviews I think. I also do not think this will go in on branch as it's a very trivial problem, and it's very, very late. Also, why in attachment 201820 [details] has the word 'Company' moved? And can you provide a "screenshot win32 1024x768 96 DPI 1.5rc1 unpatched" like you have for Linux and OS/2 for comparison please? It looks as if there is now a large gap in the win32 version.
Comment 169•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 201266 [details] [diff] [review] Better patch of previous with extra cvs diff info included. Its far too late for something this low-impact, especially when there's no clear consensus about what's right.
Attachment #201266 -
Flags: approval1.8rc2?
Comment 170•19 years ago
|
||
I didn't attach an unpatched shot of 1024x768 96 DPI because I figured that's the settings combination over half the planet was already using, and therefore superfluous. :-) If anyone wants more screenshots, I can supply just about any OS, resolution, & DPI combination anyone likes, as long as they don't require it be done on a Mac or PDA.
Company moved because I changed the margin to nonzero so that no text would ever touch the edge as in attachment 201817 [details]. Looks like that word came up about 1px shy of fitting where it was.
The best patch would involve someone figuring out why #userAgent without an explicit height set is always too short for 4 lines, and often too short for three lines, and removing that artificial constraint.
I don't understand why "late" would be reason to reject a "low-impact" polish patch. Improved polish is something people expect from .x version upgrades.
Comment 171•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #169) > (From update of attachment 201266 [details] [diff] [review] [edit]) > Its far too late for something this low-impact, especially when there's no > clear consensus about what's right. > So we can't just stick with a CSS patch at this time? I wonder if there's some core-level bug that's causing the textbox to be that way, or maybe it's a limitation in XUL that needs to be addressed.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: superreview?(mconnor)
Comment 172•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 201816 [details] [diff] [review] patch to improve status quo for 1.5 release, not ultimate fix for trunk not really useful at this point. There's talk of leaving the UA for about: and cleaning this up a bit more
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: review?(mconnor) → review-
Comment 173•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 201266 [details] [diff] [review] Better patch of previous with extra cvs diff info included. 1.5.0.1rc2 @ 160DPI looks just like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=201817 so this patch would, as before, give the upcoming release, improved polish.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: review- → review?(mconnor)
Comment 174•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 201816 [details] [diff] [review] patch to improve status quo for 1.5 release, not ultimate fix for trunk polish fixes aren't in scope for 1.5.0.x
Attachment #201816 -
Flags: review?(mconnor) → review-
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #201266 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Reporter | ||
Comment 175•18 years ago
|
||
This looks fixed to me now. Looks perfect on branch and trunk with Windows on Normal or Large fonts--accommodating a 3-line UA string just fine. Extra Large fonts provides a scrollbar to view the whole 4-line string, which is fine with me.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago → 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 176•18 years ago
|
||
Nothing's changed since I created attachment 201817 [details]. 1.5.0.5 looks exactly the same. The iframe should be sized in em as in attachment 201816 [details] [diff] [review].
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 177•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #176) > Nothing's changed since I created attachment 201817 [details] [edit]. 1.5.0.5 looks exactly the > same. The iframe should be sized in em as in attachment 201816 [details] [diff] [review] [edit]. Did you even read comment #174?
Comment 178•18 years ago
|
||
Fixed for me in Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.1b1) Gecko/20060710 Firefox/2.0b1 I would mark as fixed.
Comment 179•18 years ago
|
||
Long time ago. All that means is the current status seems to be wontfix. The string is still not entirely displayed, making the about dialog look to high DPI users like it was designed by windoz for windoz and no one else matters. There's no good reason for that space to have a scrollbar on any but windoz systems, where everyone's used to riduculously short list boxes.
Comment 180•18 years ago
|
||
This is as fixed as it will ever be. Its a trivial problem displaying a string that most people don't care about or look at more than once.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago → 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 181•18 years ago
|
||
I hope 2.0 final is a lot better than attachment 201817 [details] because that's what 2.0b2 looks like.
Comment 182•18 years ago
|
||
Definitely not fixed.
Updated•18 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Updated•18 years ago
|
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 183•18 years ago
|
||
Not only is only about half the UA string shown, the page title doesn't even fit the titlebar. This is very unpolished.
Comment 184•18 years ago
|
||
File a new bug, with steps to reproduce and your system config. This bug has outlived it's usefulness.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago → 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 185•18 years ago
|
||
Steps to reproduce have not changed since this bug was opened. Simply use a DPI more than nominally higher than 96, and open the about dialog. 120, 144 and 192 are all bad.
Summary: User Agent string in the About Firefox dialog is cut off at the bottom → Firefox needs a competently designed about window.
Comment 186•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #185) > Steps to reproduce have not changed since this bug was opened. Simply use a DPI > more than nominally higher than 96, and open the about dialog. 120, 144 and 192 > are all bad. This bug as originally filed wasn't about users who use abnormal DPI settings. Please file a new bug about that, if one isn't already filed.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Summary: Firefox needs a competently designed about window. → User Agent string in the About Firefox dialog is cut off at the bottom
Comment 187•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 0 was simply an incomplete description of the problem. If 1-2px are cut off at the bottom when only 2 lines are showing, then by definition the third and subsequent lines are missing. The dialog was incompetently designed when this bug was filed, and remains so now.
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 188•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #187) > Comment 0 was simply an incomplete description of the problem. No, it wasn't. This bug has now been fixed for the majority of cases. Please don't reopen this bug. Find me on IRC if you want to discuss this further.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago → 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•18 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 189•18 years ago
|
||
I have ben following this bug for sometime. I think it was decided that this bug would only fixe the situation for normal fonts. People who want a solution for personal configuration should open an another bug. This bug is fixed ! Before reopening please obtain somekind of consensus by discusion.
Status: VERIFIED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago → 18 years ago
Comment 190•18 years ago
|
||
See comment 180 Felix, you know better than to pingpong bugs because you disagree with the resolution :P
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•