1141617 - Uplift to 38 suggested tiles string changes as code

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox :: New Tab Page, defect)

Description

[Ed Lee :Mardak]

There will be various string changes needed for the affiliate suggested tiles bug 1120311. We'll want to land strings in Nightly 39 to uplift to Aurora 38 to avoid trying to uplift to string frozen Beta 38.

Comment 1

[Kevin Ghim]

[Tracking Requested - why for this release]: Request to uplift tracking bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1120311, into Aurora 38 from Nightly 39 for the release of Suggested Tiles for internal Mozilla partners only. Reasons for uplift to 38 are:

- Provide scale for the Fennec for Android campaign in addition to our own/operated Snippets on about:home and Directory Tiles campaigns
- Provide introduction personalized tiles delivery based on increased contextual relevancy
- Provide tiles scheduling and servering efficiencies to internal and external clients by reducing cost of acquisition/action

Comment 2

[Liz Henry (:lizzard) (relman/hg->git project)]

Tracking this for 38. 

Ed, you may want to talk with Axel to see what your options are, since strings are already frozen in aurora.

Comment 3

[Kevin Ghim]

This is for En-US local/geo only.

Comment 4

[Ed Lee :Mardak]

As kghim notes, the functionality in Firefox 38 is only for en-US users in particular those in US. We can code the changes in a way that don't touch string files for landing on Aurora 38 or Beta 38. So even if we got approval to land string changes on Aurora 38, we probably would want to avoid unnecessary localization rush for strings that users outside of en-US wouldn't see.

Comment 5

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

Agreed, in particular as localizers wouldn't be able to test the strings, and might forget in 39.

Makes this bug WONTFIX?

Comment 6

[Ed Lee :Mardak]

emtwo, when we uplift the functionality to 38, we need to make sure to not touch (add/remove/edit) dtd/properties files. This also means we need to change some usages of dtd/&entities to load from js.

Here's an example of the differences between using dtd and js:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8477760&action=diff

We used to have a newTabString function to get the appropriate string:
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/annotate/ba7f43e4427a/browser/base/content/newtab/newTab.js#l38

For this bug, write the patch as if against mozilla-central (so there'll be additions to .dtd and removal from .dtd), and when we uplift, we'll merge the patch in to a single changeset, so it'll appear as if there's no changes to the .dtd.

Comment 7

[Marina Samuel [:emtwo]]

Attachment: Bug 1126186 uplift for cog menu string changes

Comment 8

[Marina Samuel [:emtwo]]

Attachment: Bug 1126188 uplift for suggested text string changes

Comment 9

[Marina Samuel [:emtwo]]

Attachment: Bug 1143797 uplift for legal text string changes

Comment 10

[Francesco Lodolo [:flod]]

(In reply to Marina Samuel [:emtwo] from comment #7)
> Created attachment 8584003 [details] [diff] [review]
> Bug 1126186 uplift for cog menu string changes

This doesn't make any sense based on comment 4 and following.

> emtwo, when we uplift the functionality to 38, we need to make sure to not
> touch (add/remove/edit) dtd/properties files. This also means we need to
> change some usages of dtd/&entities to load from js.

Comment 11

[Marina Samuel [:emtwo]]

Ed, do these patches look like what we want? What would be the next steps for getting these reviewed/uplifted? Thanks!

Francesco, I built the patches to be on top of the patches of the respective bugs mentioned in them. Those bugs had already made string changes but the patches here undo those string changes so that when they're merged and uplifted together there would be no string changes.

Comment 12

[Francesco Lodolo [:flod]]

(In reply to Marina Samuel [:emtwo] from comment #11) 
> Francesco, I built the patches to be on top of the patches of the respective
> bugs mentioned in them. Those bugs had already made string changes but the
> patches here undo those string changes so that when they're merged and
> uplifted together there would be no string changes.

Argh, sorry for the unnecessary confusion, I didn't realize it was reverting the string changes and was expecting a full patch for mozilla-aurora.

Comment 13

[Ed Lee :Mardak]

(In reply to Marina Samuel [:emtwo] from comment #11)
> Ed, do these patches look like what we want? What would be the next steps
> for getting these reviewed/uplifted? Thanks!
The patches look good. I would r?adw for each of these 3 patches. If good, attach the combined "for aurora uplift" patch in each of the dependent bug where we'll need to a-aurora? to land on aurora.

Comment 14

[Ed Lee :Mardak]

The various strings were uplifted 38 as code instead of string files.

bug 1126188 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/e9021ea8d7ca
bug 1126186 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/db2b58500934
bug 1143797 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/65f2aa5f2dd7

The strings landed as normal for 39.