1139287 - Add a username split to XMPP to split the username and domain of the JID

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Chat Core :: XMPP, defect)

Description

[Sukhbir Singh]

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.111 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce:

Create an XMPP account and enter any username without the "@" character. Complete the account creation process.


Actual results:

Instantbird will give an error for that account saying: "Invalid username (your username should contain an '@' character)."


Expected results:

This issue has been reported by many Tor Messenger users. Perhaps we can indicate on the username page itself that a username (JID) is in the form of username@server, since users take username to be just the username minus domain.tld. Right now, the error is shown after the account creation process is completed.

I will submit a patch for this once we decide if we can show the message on the username page itself and in what way (whether through a label, error message, notification etc.) One easy way is changing the label from:

> Please enter the username for your XMPP account.

to:

> Please enter the username (user@domain) for your XMPP account.

or something similar.

Comment 1

[aleth [:aleth]]

Maybe you could use this to provide a hint? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Attribute/placeholder

I agree it would be nice if the input was checked for validity immediately.

Comment 2

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

When we use the libpurple prpl for XMPP, the username is split between the username, the domain and the resource (http://i.imgur.com/0kYFwmW.png).

Was there a conscious decision to not do this for JS-XMPP, or was it just never implemented?

Comment 3

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

(In reply to Sukhbir Singh from comment #0)

> One easy way is changing the label from:
> 
> > Please enter the username for your XMPP account.
> 
> to:
> 
> > Please enter the username (user@domain) for your XMPP account.
> 
> or something similar.

This is supported, by setting the usernameEmptyText property on the protocol plugin:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/chat/components/public/prplIProtocol.idl?rev=f81a23bfefcd#32

For example: http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/chat/protocols/gtalk/gtalk.js?rev=f81a23bfefcd#92

Comment 4

[Sukhbir Singh]

So summarizing the feedback on this:

- Should we redesign the JS-XMPP UI to match that of libpurple?
- Else, we can just use usernameEmptyText and set it to "[e-mail]" or "[e-mail]" so that users know that they have to put in the JID and not just the handle.
  - If yes, should we validate immediately and not wait till the account completion process has completed? Or is setting the usernameEmptyText hint enough?

Comment 5

[aleth [:aleth]]

The libpurple UI had its own variant of this bug, bug 953873.

Comment 6

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

(In reply to Sukhbir Singh from comment #4)
> So summarizing the feedback on this:
> 
> - Should we redesign the JS-XMPP UI to match that of libpurple?

That doesn't require touching the UI code either, user name splits are already supported, you just need to declare them. See http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/chat/protocols/irc/irc.js?rev=f28ff368b740#1915 for an example.

>   - If yes, should we validate immediately and not wait till the account
> completion process has completed? Or is setting the usernameEmptyText hint
> enough?

We already do some form of validation to avoid creating duplicate accounts. Checking that the username actually has a reasonable syntax would be a good addition.

Comment 7

[Patrick Cloke [:clokep]]

(In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] (Away until March 11) from comment #2)
> When we use the libpurple prpl for XMPP, the username is split between the
> username, the domain and the resource (http://i.imgur.com/0kYFwmW.png).
> 
> Was there a conscious decision to not do this for JS-XMPP, or was it just
> never implemented?

Just never implemented.


(In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] (Away until March 11) from comment #6)
> >   - If yes, should we validate immediately and not wait till the account
> > completion process has completed? Or is setting the usernameEmptyText hint
> > enough?
> 
> We already do some form of validation to avoid creating duplicate accounts.
> Checking that the username actually has a reasonable syntax would be a good
> addition.

I don't think that ever landed: bug 954943.

It'd be nice if a prpl could validate account information before being created, yes. But then we're conflating two issues. I'd suggest splitting that into a separate bug if it is desired.

Comment 8

[aleth [:aleth]]

(In reply to Patrick Cloke [:clokep] from comment #7)
> (In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] (Away until March 11) from
> comment #2)
> > When we use the libpurple prpl for XMPP, the username is split between the
> > username, the domain and the resource (http://i.imgur.com/0kYFwmW.png).
> > 
> > Was there a conscious decision to not do this for JS-XMPP, or was it just
> > never implemented?
> 
> Just never implemented.

As the bug I linked to earlier suggests, it's likely still necessary to provide a good hint or tooltip.

Comment 9

[Sukhbir Singh]

So for now then, should I then focus on something that serves as a hint/tooltip using usernameEmptyText? The validation will then be another patch.

Comment 10

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

So, let's summarize:

- splitting the username is something that should be implemented. It's easy to do.

- validating the username syntax would be nice, but should be a separate bug.

Comment 11

[Patrick Cloke [:clokep]]

Attachment: Username split patch v1

This implement the username split. Note that we don't include the resource (like libpurple does) since it is a protocol option in JS-XMPP. This was a choice we made on purpose, I believe.

Comment 12

[Patrick Cloke [:clokep]]

Thanks! I'll check this in soon.

Comment 13

[Patrick Cloke [:clokep]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/8d304929817c

If we want some sort of validation in the form, we need to file a new bug.

Should this be a 1.7 milestone at this point? (Or should we switch to Mozilla milestones?)

Comment 14

[aleth [:aleth]]

(In reply to Patrick Cloke [:clokep] from comment #13)
> https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/8d304929817c
> 
> If we want some sort of validation in the form, we need to file a new bug.

This now also means bug 953873 needs fixing.