1004242 - Expose FxAccounts resendVerificationEmail to Gaia

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: FxA, defect)

Description

[Sam Penrose]

FxAccountsClient.jsm has a resendVerificationEmail method, which is exposed to FxAccounts.jsm, but needs to be added to FxAccountsManager.jsm and b2g/components/FxAccountsMgtmService.jsm so that Gaia can reach it with a mozFxAccountsContentEvent .

Comment 1

[Sam Penrose]

Attachment: 1004242-expose-resend.patch

I managed to trigger an appropriate mozFxAccountsContentEvent in Gaia and got the server to respond to a '/recovery_email/status' HTTP request, so this patch "works." I'm a little nervous about the reject() path in FxAccountsManager.jsm, and would love your thoughts on whether it is enough given the throw in its callee. Thanks!

Comment 2

[Sam Penrose]

Attachment: 1004242-expose-resend.patch

Per offline chat, I added a unit test that verifies error handling. Thanks for your consideration!

Comment 3

[Jed Parsons (use needinfo, please) [:jedp, :jparsons]]

Comment on attachment 8418825 [details] [diff] [review]
1004242-expose-resend.patch

Review of attachment 8418825 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Looks good, Sam!  Thanks for adding the test.

::: services/fxaccounts/FxAccountsManager.jsm
@@ +254,5 @@
> +    return this._fxAccounts.resendVerificationEmail().then(
> +      (result) => {
> +        return result;
> +      },
> +      (error) => {

I realize more and more how many different formatting styles we have in these files for promises.  It's not a problem with this patch, but something to add to the List Of Things To Fix When We Have All The Time In The World.

::: services/fxaccounts/tests/xpcshell/test_manager.js
@@ +608,5 @@
> +    (success) => {
> +      do_throw("Unexpected success");
> +    },
> +    (error) => {
> +      do_check_eq(error.error, ERROR_SERVER_ERROR);

perfect. thank you.

Comment 4

[Sam Penrose]

Attachment: 1004242-expose-resend.patch

Comment 5

[Sam Penrose]

Ryan --

Per your request I ran a try build. The result was a cascade of known issues, mostly timeouts, many of them two years old. I don't see any real problems, but of course I may be missing one. What's the best way forward?

  https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=f0617c6bb803

Comment 6

[Ryan VanderMeulen [Away July 12-26]]

That run is looking fine so far. We're just getting more picky about requiring Try runs before landing checkin-needed patches.

BTW, please give https://wiki.mozilla.org/Sheriffing/How:To:Recommended_Try_Practices a look when you get a chance :)

Comment 7

[Ryan VanderMeulen [Away July 12-26]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/9f619ae7c62e

Comment 8

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9f619ae7c62e