If you think a bug might affect users in the 57 release, please set the correct tracking and status flags for Release Management.

octal literals and octal escape sequences are deprecated: ...resource://mozmill/stdlib/httpd.js

RESOLVED FIXED in Thunderbird 36.0

Status

Thunderbird
Testing Infrastructure
--
trivial
RESOLVED FIXED
3 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: ISHIKAWA, Chiaki, Assigned: ISHIKAWA, Chiaki)

Tracking

unspecified
Thunderbird 36.0

Thunderbird Tracking Flags

(thunderbird36 fixed)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Assignee)

Description

3 years ago
Created attachment 8496555 [details] [diff] [review]
Replaced literal octal string(s) with ParseInt() call(s).

During testing of DEBUG version of TB using "make mozmill" test suite
run, I noticed that the following message and a few similar
lines printed for the same file:
comm-central/mail/test/resources/mozmill/mozmill/extension/resource/stdlib/httpd.js

JavaScript strict warning: resource://mozmill/stdlib/httpd.js, line 2139: SyntaxError: octal literals and octal escape sequences are deprecated

A patch to replace octet literal(s) with call(s) to ParseInt(..., 8)
is attached.
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
Blocks: 826732
(Assignee)

Comment 1

3 years ago
Comment on attachment 8496555 [details] [diff] [review]
Replaced literal octal string(s) with ParseInt() call(s).

Hi,

I won't mind creating a new patch if 0o prefix is a preferred approach these days.

TIA
Attachment #8496555 - Flags: review?(standard8)
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
Assignee: nobody → ishikawa
Attachment #8496555 - Flags: review?(standard8) → review+

Comment 2

3 years ago
I wonder if we actually should fix these mozmill files. Won't they be replaced by newer mozmill anyway? Will making changes to our local mozmill not break the upgrade?
(In reply to :aceman from comment #2)
> I wonder if we actually should fix these mozmill files. Won't they be
> replaced by newer mozmill anyway? Will making changes to our local mozmill
> not break the upgrade?

I would expect the "upgrade" to be "replace existing version with the new one", not "generate patch and apply it". So I don't think it matters too much.
(and this file is gone in the latest mozmill master)

Comment 5

3 years ago
Yeah, then we should better proceed with the upgrade than wasting time on these warnings. I think Chiaki was working on the upgrade.
(Assignee)

Comment 6

3 years ago
(In reply to :aceman from comment #5)
> Yeah, then we should better proceed with the upgrade than wasting time on
> these warnings. I think Chiaki was working on the upgrade.

WAIT A SECOND here.

I have replaced mozmill with a newer version, I thought. Last year, if I am not mistaken.

Can Mark explain which version (upstream) is he talking about?

Maybe I should again go ahead and make the replacement ahead of the pack.
Still, I wonder why I had not noticed this issue before...
Oh, is it possible that the latest update/refresh of local C-C tree
replaced my NEW replacement of mozmill internally?

Totally confused.

Comment 7

3 years ago
From what I can see, bug 929608 (mozmill 1.5.24) and bug 930732 (mozmill 2.0) as still unfinished and didn't produce anything landable in the trunk.
(Assignee)

Comment 8

3 years ago
Created attachment 8497242 [details] [diff] [review]
Use 0o prefix for octal literal.

Sorry there was a misspelling and somehow JS and mozmill did not catch it (?)

(I have four similar bugzilla entries/patches. Here is a template
response.)

Thank you for the review.

I am uploading a new patch with that uses "0o" prefix for
octal literal.  It seems "0o..." notation is preferred over
parseInt(..., 8).

Regarding the misspelling of "ParseInt" for "parseint",
I thought initially people were referring to the misspelling
in the description field of my patch.

I said "Whoa!" when I realized that the code itself had this misspelling(!)

SURPRISE: I had applied the patch to my source tree, and had run the
|make mozmill| test, and JS and mozmill test frame never printed a
single complaint about this (!!!)

That is why I did not realize the misspelling in the code portion of
the patch.

I carefully checked the log files and found no mention of ParseInt at
all. Also, the number of failed errors were not that much
different before and after the patch.
(Because of timing-sensitive errors that happen during shutdown (bugs), etc.,
the number of failed errors may differ from one run to the other. I
did not see any major errors possibly due to the "ParseInt"
misspellings.)
So, I think JS interpreter is doing something without aborting the 
execution.

What gives? I think this merits a new bugzilla entry...

Anyway, the simple "Use 0o prefix for octal literal" patch is
uploaded.

TIA
Attachment #8496555 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8497242 - Flags: review?(standard8)
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
See Also: bug 1073921
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
See Also: → bug 1073912
Attachment #8497242 - Flags: review?(standard8) → review+
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/2a99fdb46c1f
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 36.0
status-thunderbird36: --- → fixed
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.