Enable push notifications on Desktop

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 42

Status

()

defect
RESOLVED FIXED
4 years ago
4 years ago

People

(Reporter: dougt, Assigned: dougt)

Tracking

({dev-doc-complete, meta})

unspecified
mozilla42
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox42 fixed, relnote-firefox 42+)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

No description provided.
Depends on: 1153500
Depends on: 1153501
Depends on: 1153502
Depends on: 1149274
Depends on: 1149271
Depends on: 1153503
Depends on: 1153504
Depends on: 1038811
Depends on: 1150683
Depends on: 1150812
Depends on: 1156397
Depends on: 1149195
Depends on: 1173389
Status update: Kit or Nikhil can clarify but I'm under the impression that bug 1153500 and bug 1153504 are the remaining blockers to shipping push on Desktop.
Depends on: 1183882
Comment on attachment 8641336 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/14467/#review13103

::: modules/libpref/init/all.js:146
(Diff revision 1)
> +pref("dom.serviceWorkers.enabled", true);

You need to adjust the test_*interfaces tests for this.
Attachment #8641336 - Flags: review?(ehsan)
That is r-.  Not sure how to do that on ReviewBoard.
Comment on attachment 8641336 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan

Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r?dougt,ehsan
Attachment #8641336 - Flags: review?(ehsan)
Attachment #8641336 - Flags: review?(dougt) → review+
Comment on attachment 8641336 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/14467/#review13251

Ship It\!
Comment on attachment 8641336 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/14467/#review13459

Ship It!

::: modules/libpref/init/all.js:146
(Diff revision 2)
> +pref("dom.serviceWorkers.enabled", true);

I think instead of these #ifdefs, it would be better to move this to firefox.js.

::: modules/libpref/init/all.js:4447
(Diff revision 2)
>  pref("dom.push.enabled", true);

This too!
Attachment #8641336 - Flags: review?(ehsan) → review+
Comment on attachment 8641336 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan

Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan
Attachment #8641336 - Attachment description: MozReview Request: Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r?dougt,ehsan → MozReview Request: Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan
url:        https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/95bd6642e4b1c4facd070773d91d00317e74deea
changeset:  95bd6642e4b1c4facd070773d91d00317e74deea
user:       Nikhil Marathe <nsm.nikhil@gmail.com>
date:       Wed Jul 15 13:12:44 2015 -0700
description:
Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan
url:        https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/252814d5e628bdf69b1ecfd799fd94e44c1dd56f
changeset:  252814d5e628bdf69b1ecfd799fd94e44c1dd56f
user:       Nikhil Marathe <nsm.nikhil@gmail.com>
date:       Wed Jul 15 13:12:44 2015 -0700
description:
Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan
Moving the relnote tracking flag from bug 1153503 to here as it seems that the fun is occurring here:

Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated)
[Why is this notable]: Push notifications seems noteworthy.
[Suggested wording]: Implemented Push API
[Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]:
relnote-firefox: --- → ?
url:        https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f3e4d353f5798e3947a152c0aaea5e022c3cc27c
changeset:  f3e4d353f5798e3947a152c0aaea5e022c3cc27c
user:       Nikhil Marathe <nsm.nikhil@gmail.com>
date:       Wed Jul 15 13:12:44 2015 -0700
description:
Bug 1153499 - Enable push and sw prefs. r=dougt,ehsan
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f3e4d353f579
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla42
Depends on: 1192420
Flags: needinfo?(dougt)
(In reply to Sylvestre Ledru [:sylvestre] from comment #15)
> Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated)
> [Why is this notable]: Push notifications seems noteworthy.
> [Suggested wording]: Implemented Push API
> [Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]:

I assume this is only available in ServiceWorkers? Then please mention that in the relnotes (to not confuse it with the different Push API implemented for Firefox OS):

[Suggested wording]: Implemented Push API via Service Workers
[Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API
I would rather say something like "not SimplePush, the FxOS-only API previously mentioned [here]" since we're not shipping the network interception functionality of Service Workers and don't want confusion by mentioning them.
Depends on: 1193365
(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #21)
> I would rather say something like "not SimplePush, the FxOS-only API
> previously mentioned [here]" since we're not shipping the network
> interception functionality of Service Workers and don't want confusion by
> mentioning them.
I am not sure to understand what you are proposing. Could you propose a wording? Thanks
[Suggested wording]: Implemented Push API (note: not the same as SimplePush [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Simple_Push_API], the FxOS-only API)
[Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API
Sorry but most of the Firefox users/developers won't make a confusion with Firefox OS.
Moreover, this is clearly stated in the documentation.
So, I am using Florian proposal for the release notes "Implemented Push API via Service Workers"
(In reply to Sylvestre Ledru [:sylvestre] from comment #24)
> Sorry but most of the Firefox users/developers won't make a confusion with
> Firefox OS.

But Florian's reason for noting "via Service Workers" was due to potential confusion (see comment 20) :)

I just don't want to have people think we're shipping all of Service Workers.  Please take that into account with your wording.

Thanks.
I tried to word it so it is less likely to be confused without being overly long/complicated. For the release, a blog post can point out that although service workers are exposed for the Push functionality, the offline/caching functionality is not yet exposed.

Is there a way to notify HMO writers that they should consider this in their write-ups? Also, someone may write a blog post highlighting the new Push functionality (while pointing out the above) that the release notes can link to.
(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #25)
> (In reply to Sylvestre Ledru [:sylvestre] from comment #24)
> > Sorry but most of the Firefox users/developers won't make a confusion with
> > Firefox OS.
> 
> But Florian's reason for noting "via Service Workers" was due to potential
> confusion (see comment 20) :)
> 
> I just don't want to have people think we're shipping all of Service
> Workers.  Please take that into account with your wording.
> 
> Thanks.

+1

I think it better to just say the Push API is available. We can do a hacks post on it which can clarify if needed. If we say SW we need to say something like "The path to full Service Workers continues with the implementation of the Push API"
Wording updated to "Ship Push messaging with disabled web notifications from ServiceWorkers"
(thanks to Martin Best for the suggestion).
I've added a note to make this clear in the web notifications compat table, and updated the description in the release notes:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Notifications_API#Browser_compatibility
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/42#Service_Workers
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.