Closed Bug 1130812 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

AppConstants.jsm is not substituting correctly

Categories

(Firefox for Android :: General, defect)

All
Android
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Firefox 38
Tracking Status
firefox35 --- unaffected
firefox36 --- unaffected
firefox37 --- unaffected
firefox38 --- fixed
fennec 38+ ---

People

(Reporter: mfinkle, Assigned: mfinkle)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

We have a spurious ';' which stops the text from being substituted. We also have a duplicate MOZ_DEVICES property.
Attachment #8560951 - Flags: review?(rnewman)
Assignee: nobody → mark.finkle
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
tracking-fennec: --- → ?
OS: Mac OS X → Android
Hardware: x86 → All
Comment on attachment 8560951 [details] [diff] [review]
fix-appconstants v0.1

Review of attachment 8560951 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

FFFFFFFF
Attachment #8560951 - Flags: review?(rnewman) → review+
Nick, can we get a tiny smoke test for this? E.g., checking that build dates are within sane ranges, that sort of thing?
Flags: needinfo?(nalexander)
(In reply to Richard Newman [:rnewman] from comment #3)
> Nick, can we get a tiny smoke test for this? E.g., checking that build dates
> are within sane ranges, that sort of thing?

We certainly can: I've filed Bug 1130872 as a mentor bug for this.  I have often observed JS errors in browser.js, or suspected them.  Is there a reasonable way to communicate to Java that browser.js has finished loading?  It's hard to "message from the end of the script" because one can never be sure that the script has really finished parsing and executing...
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander from comment #4)

> We certainly can: I've filed Bug 1130872 as a mentor bug for this.  I have
> often observed JS errors in browser.js, or suspected them.  Is there a
> reasonable way to communicate to Java that browser.js has finished loading? 
> It's hard to "message from the end of the script" because one can never be
> sure that the script has really finished parsing and executing...

Gecko:Ready might be close enough; depends on your definition of "loaded".

Certainly that event would indicate that BrowserApp, BrowserEventHandler, all the helper classes listed around line 469 of browser.js, etc. are loaded and working to a point.
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/04faeec9c9f0
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 38
(In reply to Richard Newman [:rnewman] from comment #5)
> (In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander from comment #4)
> 
> > We certainly can: I've filed Bug 1130872 as a mentor bug for this.  I have
> > often observed JS errors in browser.js, or suspected them.  Is there a
> > reasonable way to communicate to Java that browser.js has finished loading? 
> > It's hard to "message from the end of the script" because one can never be
> > sure that the script has really finished parsing and executing...
> 
> Gecko:Ready might be close enough; depends on your definition of "loaded".
> 
> Certainly that event would indicate that BrowserApp, BrowserEventHandler,
> all the helper classes listed around line 469 of browser.js, etc. are loaded
> and working to a point.

We already block on Gecko:Ready in pretty much every test, so no sense piling on.  I just feel like browser.js evaluation can fail in ways that look like the evaluation has stopped.  Anyway, ticket filed for AppConstants.jsm test.
Flags: needinfo?(nalexander)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.