Closed Bug 1435047 Opened 2 years ago Closed 2 years ago

Thunderbird misses labelDefaultFontUnnamed definition after Bug 1378366 introduced it

Categories

(Thunderbird :: Preferences, defect, minor)

defect
Not set
minor

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
Thunderbird 60.0

People

(Reporter: rsx11m.pub, Assigned: rsx11m.pub)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Bug 1378366 - [Preferences] No values displayed by default under Fonts & Colors on ar build

I don't have a testcase for an unnamed default font on my machine, but it probably can't hurt to add that definition (just worked on that for SM in bug 1435034, but you have ported bug 1344990 already).
Attached patch Simple fixSplinter Review
Attachment #8947601 - Flags: review?(jorgk)
Can you please explain how/where/when that string "labelDefaultFontUnnamed" would be retrieved.
Sure, have a look at mozilla-central changeset 1a6103d5708d; before that change, when defaultFont was not defined, the specific handling for such a font was just omitted.

Now, after that change, instead bundlePreferences.getString("labelDefaultFontUnnamed") is used, where admittedly I was unable to trigger that situation.

This is in toolkit/mozapps/preferences/fontbuilder.js, thus should also affect Thunderbird.
Comment on attachment 8947601 [details] [diff] [review]
Simple fix

OK, thanks for taking the time to explain it.
Attachment #8947601 - Flags: review?(jorgk) → review+
Thanks for the review, please push whenever convenient.
Assignee: nobody → rsx11m.pub
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Keywords: checkin-needed
Summary: Thunderbird misses labelDefaultFontUnnamed definition after bug 1378366 introduced it → Thunderbird misses labelDefaultFontUnnamed definition after Bug 1378366 introduced it
Pushed by mozilla@jorgk.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/7350e693cbb5
add missing labelDefaultFontUnnamed definition after bug 1378366 introduced it. r=jorgk
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 60.0
Does this need beta uplift?
Flags: needinfo?(rsx11m.pub)
Basically yes, bug 1378366 landed for 58, but the patch here has l10n implications. Your call.
Flags: needinfo?(rsx11m.pub)
Right, thanks, let's leave it then.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.