Expose 429 status/error code to proxy extensions

VERIFIED FIXED in Firefox -esr68

Status

()

task
P1
normal
VERIFIED FIXED
2 months ago
Last month

People

(Reporter: baku, Assigned: kershaw)

Tracking

(Blocks 1 bug)

unspecified
mozilla69
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
qe-verify -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox-esr6868+ fixed, firefox68 fixed, firefox69 fixed)

Details

(Whiteboard: [necko-triaged][secure-proxy-mvp] )

Attachments

(1 attachment)

No description provided.
Assignee: nobody → kershaw
Priority: -- → P1
Whiteboard: [necko-triaged][secure-proxy-mvp]

Kershaw, be aware you will have to format the js changes for m-c landing according the new linting rules with ./mach eslint --fix.

See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Coding_Style/Formatting_JS_Code_With_Prettier_and_eslint

Pushed by kjang@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/c39d4a7790e5
New error NS_ERROR_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS for 429 response r=mayhemer

Comment on attachment 9076322 [details]
Bug 1563824 - New error NS_ERROR_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS for 429 response

Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request

  • User impact if declined: Not showing http 429 response properly.
  • Is this code covered by automated tests?: Yes
  • Has the fix been verified in Nightly?: Yes
  • Needs manual test from QE?: No
  • If yes, steps to reproduce:
  • List of other uplifts needed: None
  • Risk to taking this patch: Low
  • Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky): This patch just introduces a new error code and return it when receiving 429 response.
  • String changes made/needed:
Attachment #9076322 - Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 months ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla69

You should have asked release approval.

Comment on attachment 9076322 [details]
Bug 1563824 - New error NS_ERROR_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS for 429 response

Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request

  • User impact if declined: Not showing http 429 response properly.
  • Is this code covered by automated tests?: Yes
  • Has the fix been verified in Nightly?: Yes
  • Needs manual test from QE?: No
  • If yes, steps to reproduce:
  • List of other uplifts needed: None
  • Risk to taking this patch: Low
  • Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky): This patch just introduces a new error code and return it when receiving 429 response.
  • String changes made/needed:
Attachment #9076322 - Flags: approval-mozilla-release?

Comment on attachment 9076322 [details]
Bug 1563824 - New error NS_ERROR_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS for 429 response

This is already in 69.

Attachment #9076322 - Flags: approval-mozilla-beta? → approval-mozilla-beta-

I will mark this qe-verify- as per comment 4 and comment 7.

Flags: qe-verify-

Please add repro steps with expected results for testing.

There is no way to test this bug manually easily. We have automated tests for this that pass. This is qe-.

Marking this bug as resolved fixed and will re-open if any issues occur during regular browsing using the proxy.

Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED

Comment on attachment 9076322 [details]
Bug 1563824 - New error NS_ERROR_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS for 429 response

I wish the uplift request had more details. Why is 429 important? What happens if it's not exposed? Why is that bad?

Anyway, approved for 68.0.1 and 68.1esr.

Attachment #9076322 - Flags: approval-mozilla-release?
Attachment #9076322 - Flags: approval-mozilla-release+
Attachment #9076322 - Flags: approval-mozilla-esr68+

(In reply to Julien Cristau [:jcristau] from comment #13)

Comment on attachment 9076322 [details]
Bug 1563824 - New error NS_ERROR_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS for 429 response

I wish the uplift request had more details. Why is 429 important?

This is a "too many requests sent to me" error code that a proxy notifies the client of a possible abuse.

What happens if it's not exposed?

We can't handle it gracefully and show the user a proper notification/error page explaining why his/her proxy stopped working - that the user is abusing the proxy over limits.

Why is that bad?

Anyway, approved for 68.0.1 and 68.1esr.

thanks.

Per discussion with jcristau, we're uplifting this to 68.0.1esr also to maintain parity with the non-ESR 68.0.1 release and hopefully avoid some confusion.

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.