Closed
Bug 1012660
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Remove _chatRoomFieldsList from IRC code
Categories
(Chat Core :: IRC, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
1.6
People
(Reporter: clokep, Assigned: clokep)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 3 obsolete files)
|
13.86 KB,
patch
|
clokep
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This has become obsolete, we can now directly set the chatRoomFields now that joinChat returns a conversation object for IRC (see bug 1003200).
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8424812 -
Flags: review?(aleth)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
This blocks bug 955366 since this code should be removed or switched to a NormalizedMap.
Blocks: 955366
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8424812 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1
Review of attachment 8424812 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Well spotted! This is a nice simplification and improves the error handling too.
::: chat/protocols/irc/ircBase.jsm
@@ +1086,1 @@
> return conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.noChannel");
It's not strictly speaking part of this bug, but as you are touching all these connection errors anyway... please add a conv.joining = false to the errors which imply joining failed.
@@ +1096,1 @@
> return serverErrorMessage(this, aMessage,
Shouldn't this be a conversationErrorMessage now we have a tab open despite not being able to join the channel?
You also have to remove chatRoomFields on the conversation so it doesn't reconnect.
@@ +1201,5 @@
> },
> "437": function(aMessage) { // ERR_UNAVAILRESOURCE
> // <nick/channel> :Nick/channel is temporarily unavailable
> + conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.unavailable");
> + return true;
Are you intentionally allowing reconnections here due to the "temporarily"?
@@ +1285,5 @@
> return false;
> },
> "471": function(aMessage) { // ERR_CHANNELISFULL
> // <channel> :Cannot join channel (+l)
> + conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.channelFull");
ditto
@@ +1295,5 @@
> return false;
> },
> "473": function(aMessage) { // ERR_INVITEONLYCHAN
> // <channel> :Cannot join channel (+i)
> + conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.inviteOnly");
I don't think we want reconnections here.
Attachment #8424812 -
Flags: review?(aleth) → review-
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to aleth [:aleth] from comment #3)
> ::: chat/protocols/irc/ircBase.jsm
> @@ +1086,1 @@
> > return conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.noChannel");
>
> It's not strictly speaking part of this bug, but as you are touching all
> these connection errors anyway... please add a conv.joining = false to the
> errors which imply joining failed.
Good point! I should probably abstract this out better.
> @@ +1096,1 @@
> > return serverErrorMessage(this, aMessage,
>
> Shouldn't this be a conversationErrorMessage now we have a tab open despite
> not being able to join the channel?
Probably, serverErrorMessage shouldn't really be used anyway.
> You also have to remove chatRoomFields on the conversation so it doesn't
> reconnect.
No. I want this to attempt to reconnect. The user might have closed other channels, etc.
> @@ +1201,5 @@
> > "437": function(aMessage) { // ERR_UNAVAILRESOURCE
> > // <nick/channel> :Nick/channel is temporarily unavailable
> > + conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.unavailable");
> > + return true;
>
> Are you intentionally allowing reconnections here due to the "temporarily"?
Yes. This can also be called with a nick, by the way.
>
> @@ +1285,5 @@
> > "471": function(aMessage) { // ERR_CHANNELISFULL
> > // <channel> :Cannot join channel (+l)
> > + conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.channelFull");
>
> ditto
Yes.
> @@ +1295,5 @@
> > return false;
> > },
> > "473": function(aMessage) { // ERR_INVITEONLYCHAN
> > // <channel> :Cannot join channel (+i)
> > + conversationErrorMessage(this, aMessage, "error.inviteOnly");
>
> I don't think we want reconnections here.
You're probably right, I was very iffy on this one. I'll delete _chatRoomFields here.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8424812 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8425426 -
Flags: review?(aleth)
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8425426 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v2
Review of attachment 8425426 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: chat/protocols/irc/ircUtils.jsm
@@ +218,5 @@
>
> +// Print an error message into a conversation, optionally mark the conversation
> +// as not joined and/or not rejoinable.
> +function conversationErrorMessage(aAccount, aMessage, aError,
> + aJoining, aRejoinable = true) {
I think this would be clearer with aJoinFailed = false as the default (when it's true, joining is set to false). I can't see any use case for aJoining = true and passing undefined as a parameter always looks weird.
Attachment #8425426 -
Flags: review?(aleth) → review-
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
The double negatives make my head hurt slightly, but I agree that passing undefined always seems "wrong".
Attachment #8425426 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8425454 -
Flags: review?(aleth)
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8425454 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v3
Review of attachment 8425454 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, double negatives are unfortunate but better than the alternative.
Looks good, thanks!
Attachment #8425454 -
Flags: review?(aleth) → review+
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8425454 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v3
Review of attachment 8425454 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: chat/protocols/irc/ircUtils.jsm
@@ +225,5 @@
> conv.writeMessage(aMessage.servername, _(aError, aMessage.params[1]),
> {error: true, system: true});
> delete conv._pendingMessage;
> +
> + // If a value for joining is explictly given, mark it.
Nit: you could save yourself the isMuc if you did
if (aAccount.isMUCName){
if (aJoinfailed)
...
if (!rejoinable)
...
}
Not going to r- for this though.
| Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
Carrying the review forward for changing the nit.
Attachment #8425454 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8425529 -
Flags: review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 1.6
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•