Closed
Bug 1306472
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
No load event for iframe with javascript: URI that doesn't return a string
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: mbrubeck, Assigned: bzbarsky)
References
Details
(4 keywords)
Attachments
(2 files)
207 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
6.25 KB,
patch
|
smaug
:
review+
ritu
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
ritu
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
lizzard
:
approval-mozilla-release+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This appears to be an unintentional regression from bug 1268047. In Firefox 49 and later, the onload handler for this iframe is never executed: <iframe src="javascript:1" onload="alert('hello')"></iframe> In other browsers, the onload handler *is* executed.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
Hmm. So in 48, this testcase: <iframe src="javascript:undefined" onload="alert('hello')"></iframe> doesn't fire the load event either, I guess? And the only new issue is that we made `1` act like `undefined`?
Flags: needinfo?(mbrubeck)
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
The "javascript:undefined" testcase also changed behavior. (It displays the alert in 48 but not in 49.) So maybe I was wrong about the cause of the regression.
Flags: needinfo?(mbrubeck)
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
Sorry, comment #2 was wrong. (I messed up my test file, and was testing the wrong thing.) Your guess was correct; "javascript:undefined" does not fire the load event in any version of Firefox, though it does in other browsers.
status-firefox49:
--- → affected
status-firefox50:
--- → affected
status-firefox51:
--- → affected
status-firefox52:
--- → affected
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Updated•7 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → afarre
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
Bug 1307283 was mine; just chiming in here now that my bug is a dupe of this one. Note that this can be worked around by replacing the `src` with something like `about:blank`, which is the [fix][1] we used to make remotipart's file uploader work again, but it requires a code change on the server side, which no other browser cares about. [1]: https://github.com/JangoSteve/remotipart/compare/v1.3.0...v1.3.1#diff-18f6f91c62fa429ea66ea59ceabcec7c
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Two things: 1) Our new behavior is actually following the HTML spec, but clearly the spec is wrong here. I filed https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1895 to get the spec changed. 2) I strongly believe we should in fact fix this in 49, 50, 51. In fact, I think we should back out bug 1268047, since the spec it was aligning with is not only clearly bogus but doesn't even match the browsers it was claiming to match (see <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/1107#issuecomment-253558923>). Once the spec gets sorted out, we can see about aligning to whatever the new text is.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 8•7 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•7 years ago
|
Assignee: afarre → bzbarsky
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 9•7 years ago
|
||
[Tracking Requested - why for this release]: Breaks websites.
tracking-firefox49:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox50:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox51:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox52:
--- → ?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 10•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8800736 [details] [diff] [review] Back out bug 1268047, because the spec it tried to implement backs the web Approval Request Comment [Feature/regressing bug #]: Bug 1268047 [User impact if declined]: Some sites are broken and are telling users to use other browsers. [Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: This is backing out to our previous behavior, no new tests being added. [Risks and why]: I think this is pretty low-risk, since it just restores the Firefox 48 behavior and we were not aware of any sites having issues with that behavior. This is why I'm requesting 49 approval as well; this is causing real problems in the wild, and we should fix them ASAP. [String/UUID change made/needed]: None.
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-release?
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → review+
Comment 11•7 years ago
|
||
Pushed by bzbarsky@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0f5505bf10d2 Back out bug 1268047, because the spec it tried to implement backs the web. r=smaug
Tracked for 50+ given the widespread impact.
Comment on attachment 8800736 [details] [diff] [review] Back out bug 1268047, because the spec it tried to implement backs the web Given the severity, let's uplift this to Aurora51 and Beta50 promptly and stabilize in those channels. This will give us more confidence on the fix in case we need to do a 49 dot release.
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Hello Matt, once this lands on Nightly, could you please verify this issue is fixed as expected? Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(mbrubeck)
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
uplift |
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/76da38551dce411d9d2d021853f91a2b63c1df42
Comment 16•7 years ago
|
||
Pushed by bzbarsky@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9126be480c45 followup. Fix the timeout on the html/browsers/browsing-the-web/navigating-across-documents/014.html web platform test. r=bustage
Comment 17•7 years ago
|
||
uplift |
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/157eba9fe522
Marking this as blocking 49 to indicate it is a driver for a 49.0.2 dot release. It would be good to verify the fix in the beta 50.0b7 build released this Friday. We could also land this on m-r now, and test from the treeherder builds.
Comment on attachment 8800736 [details] [diff] [review] Back out bug 1268047, because the spec it tried to implement backs the web Serious issue with 49, affecting several sites. Let's take this on mozilla-release for a 49.0.2 possibly for next week.
Attachment #8800736 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-release? → approval-mozilla-release+
Updated•7 years ago
|
Keywords: dev-doc-needed,
site-compat
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: qe-verify+
Comment 20•7 years ago
|
||
backout bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0f5505bf10d2
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla52
Comment 21•7 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9126be480c45
Comment 23•7 years ago
|
||
uplift |
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/rev/21a1f994f8c0
Comment 24•7 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/5e6651e32d271d35974a5eca2e898e7c354b8ea4 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/ef78004ec7d3661c38a66b0cb2652533757fa911 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/rev/a18dedb8c8989f50a974e0036d4aa37b39499602
Comment 26•7 years ago
|
||
Posted the site compatibility doc: https://www.fxsitecompat.com/en-CA/docs/2016/load-event-is-no-longer-fired-on-iframe-with-javascript-src-returning-non-string-value/
Keywords: dev-doc-needed → dev-doc-complete
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 27•7 years ago
|
||
Uh.. no. That's not correct at all. This bug is fixed, which means we _will_ fire that load event in 50+, and in 49 as well if we ship a dot-release after this point.
Flags: needinfo?(kohei.yoshino)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 28•7 years ago
|
||
I mean, maybe that's what the entry is trying to say, but that's definitely not the impression it's creating!
Comment 29•7 years ago
|
||
I know what's happening here; this doc should actually have been written for Bug 1268047. Somehow it slipped under my radar. Modified the description as follows: https://github.com/fxsitecompat/www.fxsitecompat.com/commit/2080b0c
Flags: needinfo?(kohei.yoshino)
This also affects fennec, right? I think this means we also need to release 49.0.2 for mobile.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 31•7 years ago
|
||
> This also affects fennec, right?
That's correct. :(
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Comment 32•7 years ago
|
||
Hey, is it possible to add a regression test for this behavior somewhere so that Firefox won't regress in the future?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 33•7 years ago
|
||
Yes. I plan to add a web platform test once the spec gets sorted out so I know what the test should test. If that takes more than about another week, I'll add a mochitest in the interim....
Comment 34•7 years ago
|
||
Well, there were tests added when the regressing bug landed, since that made us follow the spec, but the spec was wrong, and also those tests. I would expect us to get wpt tests for this once the spec issue is sorted out. Right now it is still unclear what the behavior actually should be - clearly not what the spec says, but what then, dunno. See https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1895 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1896
Reporter | ||
Comment 35•7 years ago
|
||
Verified fixed in the latest Nightly.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Flags: needinfo?(mbrubeck)
Comment 36•7 years ago
|
||
Updating flags based on Comment 35. We'll make sure this gets verified on 49.0.2 and 50.0b8 as well. ni?myself as a reminder.
Flags: needinfo?(andrei.vaida)
Comment 37•7 years ago
|
||
I've managed to reproduce this bug on an affected build (49.0.1-build3, 20160922113459). This is verified fixed on: - 49.0.2-build1 (20161018030522) - 50.0b8-build1 (20161017130949) - 51.0a2 (2016-10-18) using Windows 10 x64, Ubuntu 14.04 x86 and Mac OS X 10.11.6. The onload event is fired, as expected.
Flags: needinfo?(andrei.vaida)
Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated) [Why is this notable]: driver for dot release [Suggested wording]: [Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: Web compatibility issue with file uploads (Bug 1306472) I'm happy to change the release note wording if someone can come up with a suggestion.
relnote-firefox:
--- → ?
Comment hidden (spam) |
Comment hidden (spam) |
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 41•7 years ago
|
||
This bug is long-fixed. What makes you think this is the problem you're seeing?
Flags: needinfo?(nikolabelaa)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(nikolabelaa)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 42•5 years ago
|
||
Bug 1477821 tracks updating to the spec once that's sorted out.
Updated•5 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•