1193296 - When picking an element in a tile on about:newtab, the corresponding URL should not open

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(DevTools :: Inspector, defect, P3)

Description

[Joe Walker [:jwalker]]

STR:

1. Open about:newtab
2. Open the toolbox
3. Click the "higlight element on page" button
4. Click on a tile

Expected:

The tile is selected for inspection

Actual: 

Navigation

Comment 1

[Joe Walker [:jwalker]]

History: bug 1117708.

Comment 2

[Julian Descottes [:jdescottes]]

Looks really specific to the about:newtab page. -> P3

Inspector bug triage. Filter on CLIMBING SHOES.

Comment 3

[Julian Descottes [:jdescottes]]

This is e10s only.

Comment 5

[arfinmia12984]

Attachment: now work it properly

now work properly

ESR Approval Request Comment
[Feature/Bug causing the regression]:
[User impact if declined]:
[Is this code covered by automated tests?]:
[Has the fix been verified in Nightly?]:
[Needs manual test from QE? If yes, steps to reproduce]:
[List of other uplifts needed for the feature/fix]:
[Is the change risky?]:
[Why is the change risky/not risky?]:
[String changes made/needed]:

See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/ESR_Landing_Process for more info.

Approval Request Comment
[Feature/Bug causing the regression]:
[User impact if declined]:
[Is this code covered by automated tests?]:
[Has the fix been verified in Nightly?]:
[Needs manual test from QE? If yes, steps to reproduce]:
[List of other uplifts needed for the feature/fix]:
[Is the change risky?]:
[Why is the change risky/not risky?]:
[String changes made/needed]:

Approval Request Comment
[Feature/Bug causing the regression]:
[User impact if declined]:
[Is this code covered by automated tests?]:
[Has the fix been verified in Nightly?]:
[Needs manual test from QE? If yes, steps to reproduce]:
[List of other uplifts needed for the feature/fix]:
[Is the change risky?]:
[Why is the change risky/not risky?]:
[String changes made/needed]:

[Security approval request comment]
How easily could an exploit be constructed based on the patch?

Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem?

Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw?

If not all supported branches, which bug introduced the flaw?

Do you have backports for the affected branches? If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be?

How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need?

Comment 6

[Julian Descottes [:jdescottes]]

This seems to have been fixed.