1622703 - Check which new Firefox enterprise policies we should have for 78

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Thunderbird :: General, task, P1)

Description

[Geoff Lankow (:darktrojan)]

It's been quite a while since we first copied Firefox's enterprise policies. Richard's ported some of the newer ones, but there's quite a lot of things they have that we don't have.

Comment 1

[Geoff Lankow (:darktrojan)]

Attachment: 1622703-enterprise-78-1.diff

Comment 2

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Comment on attachment 9152024 [details] [diff] [review]
1622703-enterprise-78-1.diff

Review of attachment 9152024 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: mail/components/enterprisepolicies/schemas/policies-schema.json
@@ +315,5 @@
> +        },
> +        "browser.places.importBookmarksHTML": {
> +          "type": "boolean"
> +        },
> +        "browser.bookmarks.restore_default_bookmarks": {

hmm, some of these are really quite irrelevant to tb
maybe we should skip the bookmarks stuff at least

@@ +332,5 @@
> +          "type": "boolean"
> +        },
> +        "browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled": {
> +          "type": "boolean"
> +        },

maybe these too

Comment 3

[Geoff Lankow (:darktrojan)]

Actually, there's a lot of those that shouldn't be there, because they either do nothing in Thunderbird or we're using them to explicitly turn features off. I think I started going through them for this patch, then gave up and copied them all across. I'll prune them again properly before landing.

Comment 4

[Geoff Lankow (:darktrojan)]

Attachment: 1622703-enterprise-78-2.diff

I've had to make some changes as some of the preferences tab pieces really weren't ready.

Comment 5

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/b10f1799da16
Copy new enterprise policies from Firefox. r=mkmelin

Comment 6

[Lasana Murray]

Hi Geoff.

This line in the patch (privacy.js):

exceptionsButton.disabled = !acceptCookies || cookieBehaviorLocked;

Was there a specific reason for including acceptCookies in here? I think this causes bug 1659335.

Comment 7

[Geoff Lankow (:darktrojan)]

I only vaguely recall doing this, but at a guess I'd say I didn't account for adding an exception that allows cookies when the default is not to.