86778 - Make Account Manager Offline Preference Lockable

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Account Configuration, defect, P2)

Description

[Diane Sun]

This is based on bug 82805 which autually locks the offline preference through 
xpcom  js approach for  User Prefs 
"mail.server.server1.offline_download"
"mail.server.server1.download_bodies_on_get_new_mail"


Bug 79305 will provide generic approach to make all preferenc lockable through 
adding  prefstring,  severkey, identitykey.
After  79305 ( eddyk) being checked in,  we need to add the prefstrings for the 
above preference  to am-offline.xul,   see attachement  38993 in bug 82805

Comment 1

[Diane Sun]

Attachment: Fix in xul file

Comment 2

[eddyk]

I'd like to request a change; at line 109, you have three pref attributes, but
no prefstring. It should be an all or nothing use.

Can that be fixed in this bug as well?

Comment 3

[Rodney Velasco]

my area...QA over to me.

Comment 4

[Diane Sun]

Eddy, your question will be fixed in another bug Disk Space bug 85335.

Comment 5

[Diane Sun]

Request  R & SR,  Eddy,  Bhuvan,  Seth?

Comment 6

[racham]

looks right. r=bhuvan.

Please run test scenarios with prefs locked. It possible you may come across
bugs like 86911 (bug 86911), which will be important to know to ensure the
correctness of locking feature.

Comment 7

[Jussi-Pekka Mantere]

Reassigning.

Comment 8

[eddyk]

set milestone to 0.9.4

Comment 9

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

eddyk, do you still need a review on that last patch?

Comment 10

[eddyk]

I'm moving TFV to future and putting a dependancy on bug 79305.

I'm doing this because the offline/disk panel elements are populated and saved
via am-offline.js  and not AccountManager.js.  Adding the xul attributes in the
patch would involve the code in AccountManager and seems a bit dangerous at this
point at worst and redundant at best.

Once 79305 is implemented, I'll have to come back and resolve any conflicts
between the differing methods.  From my point of view, it seems possible that
most or all of the code in am-offline.js would need to be dropped once 79305 is
done.

Comment 11

[tao]

Hi, Putterman:

Any chance we get this one in by 0.9.9?

Steven, Jeff - would you provide some inputs on this? Private email will do, too.

thx

Comment 12

[scottputterman]

reassigning to racham.  I've marked the bug it's dependent on as 1.2. How
immportant are these sets of bugs and is there anyone on your team that can help
out, Tao?

Comment 13

[scottputterman]

Moving to 1.0, but it's likely these will be moved out further.

Comment 14

[Rodney Velasco]

this bug is fixed due to bug 144563.  fixed on the trunk.

Comment 15

[Rodney Velasco]

verified on trunk...see bug 144563 for more details