ntp_text theme property does not change the font color of the new tab page
Categories
(Firefox :: New Tab Page, defect, P3)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr78 | --- | unaffected |
firefox-esr91 | --- | wontfix |
firefox92 | --- | wontfix |
firefox93 | --- | wontfix |
firefox94 | --- | verified |
People
(Reporter: robwu, Assigned: amy)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(1 obsolete file)
STR:
- Visit https://color.firefox.com and install the extension.
- Go to the "Advanced colors" tab and set "New Tab Background Color" to a red color and "New Tab Text" to white.
- Open a new tab
- Look at the colors
Expected:
- The background should be red.
- The text on the background (e.g. "Recommended by Pocket" and the text of the tiles) should be white.
Actual:
- The background is red as expected.
- The text is still black.
This is a regression from bug 1686384, because it introduced the --newtab-background-primary-text-color
CSS variable without mirroring the extension-defined ntp_text
to it.
The unit tests at browser_ext_themes_ntp_colors.js
and browser_ext_themes_ntp_colors_perwindow.js
did not catch this because we don't have test coverage for this specific aspect.
Comment 1•3 years ago
|
||
Any chance you or someone working on newtab can look at this regression?
Comment 2•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Shane Caraveo (:mixedpuppy) from comment #1)
Any chance you or someone working on newtab can look at this regression?
I'm not sure who is on newtab anymore, I'm no longer working at Moz.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 3•2 years ago
|
||
Amy this is probably something that is worth looking at from a newtab triage point of view.
I also think it might make sense to move this into the newtab or topsites component, too?
Assignee | ||
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 4•2 years ago
|
||
Like comment 0 said, new-new-tab introduced the variable --newtab-background-primary-text-color
which is not themeable. It replaced --newtab-text-primary-color
in some cases, which is themeable. We should consider this in bug 1727317.
Assignee | ||
Updated•2 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•2 years ago
|
||
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 8•2 years ago
|
||
Bug 1727319 landed.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 9•2 years ago
|
||
This issue was part of the work done on QA-1182 request. Considering this I am marking it as Verified.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Updated•2 years ago
|
Description
•