Closed
Bug 1107902
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Unable to add accounts when a DWM registry key is missing.
Categories
(Thunderbird :: OS Integration, defect)
Tracking
(thunderbird36 fixed, thunderbird_esr3135+ fixed)
RESOLVED
FIXED
Thunderbird 37.0
People
(Reporter: apoliak, Assigned: mkmelin)
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
3.18 KB,
patch
|
Paenglab
:
review+
standard8
:
approval-comm-aurora+
standard8
:
approval-comm-beta+
standard8
:
approval-comm-esr31-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.58 KB,
patch
|
mkmelin
:
review+
standard8
:
approval-comm-esr31+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Reported by someone else in the support site: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1015941
I had a user affected by this issue (Windows 8.1 Pro [fully patched], en-US, x86_64) and having them follow the instruction at https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1015941#answer-660970 addressed the issue.
However, the defect in Thunderbird is still in place an occurs within these two lines:
let windowFrameColor = WindowsRegistry.readRegKey(Ci.nsIWindowsRegKey.ROOT_KEY_CURRENT_USER,
"Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\DWM", "ColorizationColor");
and
let windowFrameColorHex = windowFrameColor.toString(16);
The second line uses the output of the first line without verifying that the first line has delivered correct data.
There's two ways this could be addressed:
Add exception handling around the existing code block to abort in a more graceful manner.
Modify the code to ensure that the windowFrameColor variable has acceptable contents before attempting to use it.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Sync up with firefox version of Windows8WindowFrameColor.jsm
Assignee: nobody → mkmelin+mozilla
Status: UNCONFIRMED → ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed: true
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: review?(richard.marti)
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8532806 [details] [diff] [review]
bug1107902_ColorizationColor.patch
Review of attachment 8532806 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Looks good. It's completely equal to the browser file, except the nit.
::: mail/base/modules/Windows8WindowFrameColor.jsm
@@ +46,3 @@
> },
> };
> +
nit: a LF to much.
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: review?(richard.marti) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Richard Marti (:Paenglab) from comment #2)
> nit: a LF to much.
Source files should preferably have a blank line last, no? (Many bash utils expect it so you can get strange results if you mod files with scripts and there's actually something of importance last. Like an xml files closing tag...)
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Yes, but this file has with this patch two LF's at the end.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Ah yes...
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/03a14c5d78a3 -> FIXED
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 37.0
![]() |
||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8532806 [details] [diff] [review]
bug1107902_ColorizationColor.patch
[Approval Request Comment]
Regression caused by (bug #):
User impact if declined:
Testing completed (on c-c, etc.):
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky):
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-esr31?
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-beta?
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-aurora?
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
For ESR we should just land the minimal fix:
if (!windowFrameColor) {
// Seems to be the default color (hardcoded because of bug 1065998/1107902)
return [158, 158, 158];
}
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8532806 [details] [diff] [review]
bug1107902_ColorizationColor.patch
Review of attachment 8532806 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please can someone create and get reviewed, the minimal fix that Magnus suggests.
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-esr31?
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-esr31-
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-beta?
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-beta+
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-aurora?
Attachment #8532806 -
Flags: approval-comm-aurora+
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
Magnus, is this what you thought?
Attachment #8540625 -
Flags: review?(mkmelin+mozilla)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8540625 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for ESR
Review of attachment 8540625 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, r=mkmelin
Attachment #8540625 -
Flags: review?(mkmelin+mozilla) → review+
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8540625 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for ESR
[Approval Request Comment]
Regression caused by (bug #):
User impact if declined: user could be unable to add accounts
Testing completed (on c-c, etc.): full patch is on c-c
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low
Attachment #8540625 -
Flags: approval-comm-esr31?
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8540625 -
Flags: approval-comm-esr31? → approval-comm-esr31+
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
status-thunderbird_esr31:
--- → fixed
tracking-thunderbird_esr31:
--- → 35+
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
status-thunderbird36:
--- → fixed
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•