371649 - 2.0.0.2 wants to update to 2.0.0.2

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 375710

(Toolkit :: Application Update, defect)

Description

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2

Left Firefox open and the computer idle and upon return noticed that the Software Update dialog had popped itself up asking if I wanted to install the 2.0.0.2 update. The catch is that 2.0.0.2 is already installed.

Reproducible: Didn't try

Steps to Reproduce:
It seems random and operates on its own accord.
Actual Results:  
The Software Update comes up.

Expected Results:  
I shouldn't be seeing this until the next actual update (2.0.0.3).

Comment 1

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

Please see http://kb.mozillazine.org/Updates_reported_when_running_newest_version

Does this steps from this articel (delete of active-update.xml, update.xml, and the complete updates folder) fix your reported problem ?

Comment 2

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

Before you do the steps from comment#1 can you attach the updates.log and the active-update.xml - updates.xml  to this bug ?

Comment 3

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

Attachment: last-update.log

Comment 4

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

Attachment: active-update.xml

Comment 5

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

Attachment: updates.xml

Comment 6

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

Attachment: http headers

Upon reeds request, captured with the livehttpheaders extension.

Comment 7

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

Attachment: install.log

Comment 8

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

I accidentally installed the livehttpheaders which upon restart initialized the update procedure updating fx 2.0.0.2 to 2.0.0.2 without any problems I can notice so far. So these files are all after the fact, included is http headers reed requested.

Comment 9

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Looks like a complete update to 2.0.0.2 was applied, and there is a valid BuildID and version from 2.0.0.1 in the serviceURL of updates.xml. Someone would have to check what the update code does to the history if there are two entries with the same version/buildid/whatever the key is. Otherwise this looks pretty normal. 

Comment 12

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

Sorry, bug 372981 was related, but not the same bug.
See bug 372891 comment #9 for the cause of this bug.

Comment 13

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

(In reply to comment #12)
> Sorry, bug 372981 was related, but not the same bug.
> See bug 372891 comment #9 for the cause of this bug.
> 

you mean bug 372981 comment #9 :)

Comment 15

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

I have seen enough reports of this in Hendrix that this warrants more investigation. Nominating to get it on the radar. By way of information, the users that are reporting this issue in Hendrix all seem to have the horked user agens noted in Bug 374140.

Comment 16

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

Attachment: Ben's active-update.xml

I actually just saw this 15 minutes ago. Here's the active-update.xml file before I restart.

I don't have the borked UA Marcia mentioned. Mine is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2

Comment 17

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

Although the active-update.xml file shows this:

serviceURL="https://aus2.mozilla.org/update/2/Firefox/2.0.0.1/2006120418/WINNT_x86-msvc/en-US/release/Windows_NT%205.1/update.xml"

Which suggests that I have that other build ID running around in here somewhere...

Comment 18

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

Ben, do you have also an updates.xml file the with history of the updates ?

From the active-update.xml it seems that the complete and partial update still have status "pending" there 

complete:
state="pending"

partial:
state="pending

Comment 19

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

Attachment: Ben's updates.xml

Comment 20

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

(In reply to comment #18)

The complete update is selected, and I have a 7+ MB mar file in my updates folder.

Comment 21

[Robert Chapin]

My updates.xml looks just like his.

Comment 23

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Provisionally blocking... Any clues, Robert or Seth?

Comment 24

[Robert Chapin]

I haven't been able to reproduce this behavior again.

Comment 25

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

If memory serves me correctly, the computer which this occurred on started with 2.0.0.1. The only way I can think of to reproduce this would be by installing 2.0.0.1 on a fresh system and allowing it to update while monitoring to see what happens.

Comment 26

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

accepting and investigating.

Comment 27

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

> Provisionally blocking... Any clues, Robert or Seth?

no clues yet, but busy investigating bug #375710 now, which might be related.

Comment 28

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

Ben and Lech:

2002 contained changes we made for supporting software update on Vista (see bug #375710 comment #22)

can you check your machine for what's in:

C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Application
Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Mozilla Firefox\

and attach to this bug?

Comment 29

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

about what Lech is seeing, from his "http headers" attachment, rhelmer and I noticed something very odd:

https://aus2.mozilla.org/update/1/Firefox/2.0.0.2/2007021917/WINNT_x86-msvc/en-US/release/update.xml

That is a "franken-fox" aus url, because the url schema version is 1 but the firefox version is 2.0.0.2.  That url schema version 2.

for more on this, see bug #360127.  

rob looked over the aus logs and we saw a bunch of {schema == 1, fx version == 2.0.0.x}, which is troubling.

I'm going to log a spin off bug, similar to bug #360127, but the flip side, which is to return empty updates if we see schema == 1 but fx version != 1.5.x

Comment 30

[Lech Deregowski [:lech]]

Hey Seth,

I took a peak in C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Application
Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Mozilla Firefox\

and located only updates.xml and active-update.xml along with an additional \updates\0\ directory path which is currently empty. The content of both these XML files is identical and reads as the following here:

<updates xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/2005/app-update"/>

Comment 31

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

Lech:  thanks for checking.

Ben Turner checked on his machine, and he found the same thing:

<bent> no snippets, but i've got an active-update.xml and updates.xml file, plus an empty updates/0 folder
<bent> that's weird, isn't it? why do i have those files in appdata?
<bent> oh, and both of the xml files contain only this:
<bent> <updates xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/2005/app-update"/>

Comment 32

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

note to ben and lech, the "two files containing <updates xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/2005/app-update"/>" is not expected.

after a successful update, I would expect that for:

C:\Documents and Settings\mozilla\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Mozilla Firefox\active-update.xml

but for:

C:\Documents and Settings\mozilla\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Mozilla Firefox\updates.xml, I would expect to see an <update> item for the last update.

I'll attach mine.

Comment 33

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

Attachment: expected C:\Documents and Settings\mozilla\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Mozilla Firefox\updates.xml after 2.0.0.2 -> 2.0.0.3 partial update

Comment 34

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

Just a quick note to mention->I saw a user report of the same type of thing happening on the 1.5.0.x branch for Thunderbird. The user is reporting getting offered the 1.5.0.10 update for Tbird over and over again (he mentions 75 times over the last 3 weeks).

Comment 35

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

Attachment: convert to long path on getting appDir

This will fix the bug 372981 comment #9 scenario.

Comment 36

[u276367]

Hi, just wanting to inform you, that this bug seems to persist in Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3.

Comment 37

[u276367]

Attachment: Mike's update files

I've just discovered now how to add an attachment, I hope this will help.

Comment 38

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

kimura-san, bsmedberg has proposed another solution.

see bug #375710 comment #55.

working on a fix now, based on his proposed solution.

Comment 39

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

fixed along with the fix for bug #375710.

Comment 42

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

removed blocking flag, covered by 375710

Comment 43

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

I am seeing Hendrix reports from users that claim to be seeing the same thing with 2.0.0.4. Here is one:
Comments: 
Firefox kept prompting me about the update to 2.0.0.4. I updated and
even though I have updated to 2.0.0.4, Firefox keeps prompting me to
update to 2.0.0.4.

I have updated over and over and over.

What is my problem?

Comments: 
I have Firefox 2004 already installed and yet you automatically keep
downloading and installing 7 MB of 2004 update - please stop using up my
download allowance.

Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.4

Comment 44

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

> rv:1.8.1.3
> Firefox/2.0.0.4
This Firefox doesn't seem to have completed update.
Probably, other bugs.

Comment 45

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

(In reply to comment #44)
> > rv:1.8.1.3
> > Firefox/2.0.0.4
> This Firefox doesn't seem to have completed update.
> Probably, other bugs.
> 
Its maybe Bug 374140 (Software Update (Firefox 2001 -> 2002) Problem - wrong User Agents)