1341273 - Add permission string for "unlimitedStorage" permission

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, defect)

Description

[Vasilica Tamas, QA [:vtamas]]

Attachment: 2017-02-21_1509.png

[Affected versions]:
Firefox 54.0a1 (2017-02-20)
Firefox 53.0a2 (2017-02-20)

[Affected platforms]:
Windows 10 64-bit
Ubuntu 16.04 32-bit


[Steps to reproduce]:
1.Launch Firefox with clean profile.
2.Create extensions.webextPermissionPrompts and set it to true.
3.Create xpinstall.signatures.dev-root and set it to true.
4.Restart the browser.
5.Click on “+ Add to Firefox” button to install the following webextension: https://addons-dev.allizom.org/en-US/firefox/addon/promptablepermission5/ . 


[Expected Results]:
The following text should be displayed according to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-aLncxcKpinCNpvksmknwWZhrM2bEChDmQ3C422C6Vc/edit#heading=h.tpglqhssdex :
   - unlimitedStorage: Provide unlimited storage of client-side data
   - webRequest: Access browser during Web activity

[Actual Results]:
There are no descriptions displayed in installation doorhanger for "unlimitedStorage" and "webRequest" permissions.

[Additional Notes]:
 - AMO permission pop-up successfully displays the description for these 2 permissions.
 - See attached screenshot.

Comment 1

[Andrew Swan [:aswan]]

We agreed not to prompt for webRequst since it will always be accompanied by a host permission.  Scott, can you update the permissions doc to reflect that?
Converting this bug to just add the permission string for unlimitedStorage (which we didn't actually support when permissions first landed)

Comment 2

[Andrew Swan [:aswan]]

I hate to be pedantic but the string in the google doc for unlimitedStorage is:
Provide unlimited storage of client-side data
I don't think this makes sense since permission strings are all phrased in terms of what an extension can do and the extension is not providing storage, it is using an unlimited amount of storage.  Also, I worry that "client-side data" won't mean anything to a majority of our users.

Comment 3

[Andrew Swan [:aswan]]

Whoops, I wrote the previous comment too hastily.  We don't actually implement storage quotas, so the only thing we use this permission for is to let an extension use IndexedDB without any further prompts.  I'm inclined to just not show a prompt for this permission unless/until we implement quotas.

Comment 4

[sdevaney]

So, we're removing any messaging for unlimitedStorage? Thus remove from doc?

Comment 5

[Andrew Swan [:aswan]]

(In reply to sdevaney from comment #4)
> So, we're removing any messaging for unlimitedStorage? Thus remove from doc?

That's my proposal.  Luca, what do you think?

Comment 6

[Luca Greco [:rpl] [:luca] [:lgreco]]

(In reply to Andrew Swan [:aswan] from comment #5)
> (In reply to sdevaney from comment #4)
> > So, we're removing any messaging for unlimitedStorage? Thus remove from doc?
> 
> That's my proposal.  Luca, what do you think?

Given that the unlimitedStorage permission is currently ignored, I think that it is reasonable to omit it from the permission descriptions until is actually used.

is this the proposal, am I right?

Comment 7

[Andrew Swan [:aswan]]

Oh whoops, I thought 1331618 had landed.  Given that it hasn't landed I'm closing this bug since we don't do anything with the unlimitedStorage permission.  There's still a question about whether a permission string should be added as part of bug 1331618, I would vote for "no" but we can defer that discussion for now.