All about: pages should have a "Nightly/Firefox" at the beginning of the locationbar

RESOLVED INVALID

Status

()

Firefox
Address Bar
--
minor
RESOLVED INVALID
a year ago
9 months ago

People

(Reporter: darkspirit, Unassigned)

Tracking

55 Branch
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Reporter)

Description

a year ago
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0
Build ID: 20170516192431

Steps to reproduce:

Have "Nightly" at the beginning of the locationbar:
about:accounts
about:addons
about:cache
about:config
about:crashes
about:downloads
about:healthreport
about:home
about:license
about:preferences
about:privatebrowsing
about:rights
about:sessionrestore
about:support
about:welcomeback

Bug: Don't have "Nightly" at the beginning of the locationbar:
about:
about:about
about:buildconfig
about:checkerboard
about:debugging
about:devtools-toolbox
about:logo
about:memory
about:mozilla
about:networking
about:newtab
about:performance
about:plugins
about:profiles
about:robots
about:serviceworkers
about:sync-log
about:sync-tabs
about:telemetry
about:url-classifier
about:webrtc
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Blocks: 1325171
Severity: normal → minor
Has STR: --- → yes
OS: Unspecified → All
Hardware: Unspecified → All
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Component: Untriaged → Theme
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Component: Theme → Location Bar
No longer blocks: 1325171
This was an intentional decision in bug 1051847. For many of those pages, that still seems right - about: and about:about and about:logo and so on aren't user-exposed and so we shouldn't put the chrome icon up there. For some of the pages you list, it would even be wrong - about:sync-log is just some files on disk, it's a straight-up redirect to those files and we shouldn't pretend they're anything else. about:newtab should be treated as a blank page, so that not having the chrome UI is correct, too.

For this to be a useful bug you should narrow down the list and we should add icons only to specific pages that should have them but don't. Which of these pages are actually visible from any of Firefox's UI, if about:about doesn't count?
Blocks: 1051847
Duplicate of this bug: 591579
(Reporter)

Comment 3

a year ago
Should(In reply to :Gijs from comment #1)
> This was an intentional decision in bug 1051847. For many of those pages,
> that still seems right - about: and about:about and about:logo and so on
> aren't user-exposed and so we shouldn't put the chrome icon up there. For
> some of the pages you list, it would even be wrong - about:sync-log is just
> some files on disk, it's a straight-up redirect to those files and we
> shouldn't pretend they're anything else. about:newtab should be treated as a
> blank page, so that not having the chrome UI is correct, too.
> 
> For this to be a useful bug you should narrow down the list and we should
> add icons only to specific pages that should have them but don't. Which of
> these pages are actually visible from any of Firefox's UI, if about:about
> doesn't count?
Thank you for your explanation how we got to this.

Shouldn't contents like about:logo be behind a chrome:// url (=is for resources, if I understand it right)?

When I click on "(!)" on about:buildconfig there is a text that "this page is stored on my computer",
while about:addons says that this is "a secure Nightly/Firefox site".
The first one is not correct, because it's a build-in Firefox page and not a user/3rd party page.

If I open uBlock Origins settings page, there is a "(!) moz-extension://" - Because this is 3rd party content, this seems to be right.

bug 1310447 will show a broken lock for http: and mixed content pages.

So "(!)" should be maybe only used for file:// and moz-extension:// (because it's user or 3rd party content).

about:newtab should have the magnifier icon from the search bar (like Chromium) as long Firefox hasn't detected any protocol. Ah, this will be the case: https://mozilla.invisionapp.com/share/ZKBC94BPQ#/screens/229252027 Nice!

"about:" should be the synonym of "This is a secure Firefox page". So why confusing people with incorrect description texts?^^ about:buildconfig is not like an evil.html on my desktop.
(In reply to Darkspirit from comment #3)
> Should(In reply to :Gijs from comment #1)
> > This was an intentional decision in bug 1051847. For many of those pages,
> > that still seems right - about: and about:about and about:logo and so on
> > aren't user-exposed and so we shouldn't put the chrome icon up there. For
> > some of the pages you list, it would even be wrong - about:sync-log is just
> > some files on disk, it's a straight-up redirect to those files and we
> > shouldn't pretend they're anything else. about:newtab should be treated as a
> > blank page, so that not having the chrome UI is correct, too.
> > 
> > For this to be a useful bug you should narrow down the list and we should
> > add icons only to specific pages that should have them but don't. Which of
> > these pages are actually visible from any of Firefox's UI, if about:about
> > doesn't count?
> Thank you for your explanation how we got to this.
> 
> Shouldn't contents like about:logo be behind a chrome:// url (=is for
> resources, if I understand it right)?

It isn't "behind" anything - chrome: and resource: and about: URLs are simply ways of accessing things that are stored on disk by Firefox, somewhere (often in a quasi-jar file, for which the raw URL is something like jar:file:...!/path/in/jar, which is ugly and hard to get right so we don't use it).

You can access the same file using chrome://branding/content/about.png .

I don't know why about:logo even exists - it dates back at least 10 years. Of course, by now removing it is going to be tedious because it's used by a bunch of tests for things completely unrelated to it being a logo, but very much related to it being an about: page with particular properties.

> When I click on "(!)"

It's an "i" not a "!". It's not meant to be "dangerous", and I disagree it looks like that.

> on about:buildconfig there is a text that "this page
> is stored on my computer",
> while about:addons says that this is "a secure Nightly/Firefox site".
> The first one is not correct, because it's a build-in Firefox page and not a
> user/3rd party page.

It *is* correct - the page is still stored on your computer. You would like it to say "Firefox", but it doesn't right now. It's also not accessible except through about:support. And maybe that about:support link should be sufficient, I don't know. But again, we need a better argument than just "you shipped this page with Firefox", and we probably need some UX feedback.

Either that or we should give up and use the chrome state for all the pages except error pages (which are also about: pages...) and about:blank, and about:reader, and... and then we end up having to have a list of about: pages for which we *don't* show this UI. :-\

> If I open uBlock Origins settings page, there is a "(!) moz-extension://" -
> Because this is 3rd party content, this seems to be right.
> 
> bug 1310447 will show a broken lock for http: and mixed content pages.
> 
> So "(!)" should be maybe only used for file:// and moz-extension:// (because
> it's user or 3rd party content).

> "about:" should be the synonym of "This is a secure Firefox page". So why
> confusing people with incorrect description texts?^^ about:buildconfig is
> not like an evil.html on my desktop.

No. Nononononoo. Very much no. about:blank and about:reader and various other pages routinely contain web content that is untrusted.
Whiteboard: [wontfix?]
(Reporter)

Comment 5

9 months ago
https://wiki.mozilla.org/BMO/UserGuide/BugStatuses
> INVALID    The problem described is not a bug. 
> WONTFIX    The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed.

Resolving as INVALID because of comment 1 and comment 4.
No longer blocks: 1051847
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 9 months ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Whiteboard: [wontfix?]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.