1444530 - Set --tab-min-width in the tabs binding rather than gBrowser.init

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox :: Tabbed Browser, enhancement)

Comment 1

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

Attachment: Bug 1444530 - Set --tab-min-width in the tabs binding rather than gBrowser.init.

Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/226622/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/226622/

Comment 2

[:Gijs (away/busy until Mar 10)]

Comment on attachment 8957695 [details]
Bug 1444530 - Set --tab-min-width in the tabs binding rather than gBrowser.init.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/226622/#review232482

r=me with the 'readonly' bit removed.

::: browser/base/content/tabbrowser.xml:184
(Diff revision 1)
>          <getter>
>            return window.gBrowser;
>          </getter>
>        </property>
>  
> +      <property name="_tabMinWidth" readonly="true">

You're defining a readonly property that then only has a setter? That's, uh, interesting. I assume not intended?

Comment 3

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

(In reply to :Gijs (under the weather; responses will be slow) from comment #2)
> > +      <property name="_tabMinWidth" readonly="true">
> 
> You're defining a readonly property that then only has a setter? That's, uh,
> interesting. I assume not intended?

Weird, I swear I built this and it worked...

Comment 4

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

Comment on attachment 8957695 [details]
Bug 1444530 - Set --tab-min-width in the tabs binding rather than gBrowser.init.

Review request updated; see interdiff: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/226622/diff/1-2/

Comment 5

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/c97c9a7a66da
Set --tab-min-width in the tabs binding rather than gBrowser.init. r=Gijs

Comment 6

[:Gijs (away/busy until Mar 10)]

(In reply to Dão Gottwald [::dao] from comment #3)
> (In reply to :Gijs (under the weather; responses will be slow) from comment
> #2)
> > > +      <property name="_tabMinWidth" readonly="true">
> > 
> > You're defining a readonly property that then only has a setter? That's, uh,
> > interesting. I assume not intended?
> 
> Weird, I swear I built this and it worked...

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if it did - it just looks odd and like it ought not to work.

Comment 7

[Cosmin Sabou [:CosminS]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c97c9a7a66da