Fix inverted useDownloadDir pref in about:preferences
Categories
(Firefox :: Preferences, defect, P1)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr91 | --- | unaffected |
firefox100 | - | unaffected |
firefox101 | + | verified |
firefox102 | + | verified |
People
(Reporter: aminomancer, Assigned: aminomancer)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(1 file)
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
RyanVM
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
I forgot to replace value
with inverted
in bug 1762775. This is just to fix that.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•2 months ago
|
||
I forgot to add a property in bug bug 1762775.
This patch just resolves that.
Comment 2•2 months ago
|
||
How does this manifest in practice? Is the pref actually backwards from the user's perspective? I suppose we will need to uplift this?
Comment 3•2 months ago
|
||
(In reply to Dão Gottwald [::dao] from comment #2)
How does this manifest in practice? Is the pref actually backwards from the user's perspective?
Yes
I suppose we will need to uplift this?
Yes
Comment 4•2 months ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9274749 [details]
Bug 1767367 - Fix inverted useDownloadDir pref. r=dao
Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: Wrong preference state in user-visible preferences
- Is this code covered by automated tests?: No
- Has the fix been verified in Nightly?: No
- Needs manual test from QE?: Yes
- If yes, steps to reproduce: Check that the "Always ask you where to save files" checkbox behaves as expected in the Firefox settings
- List of other uplifts needed: None
- Risk to taking this patch: Low
- Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky): Trivial equivalent of a missing
!
operator addition in markup + JS - String changes made/needed: No
- Is Android affected?: No
Updated•2 months ago
|
Updated•2 months ago
|
Pushed by gijskruitbosch@gmail.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/f0946689c7ef Fix inverted useDownloadDir pref. r=dao,preferences-reviewers,Gijs
Updated•2 months ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•2 months ago
|
||
Yeah it's just reversed. Thanks and sorry I overlooked this 😳
Updated•2 months ago
|
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 7•2 months ago
|
||
Is this something we can add a test for?
Comment 8•2 months ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #7)
Is this something we can add a test for?
I mean, as I noted on phabricator, we don't normally test that a checkbox pref "does what it says on the tin" - the implementation is shared amongst all checkbox, and really the test can't check that the prose English label of the checkbox maps to the "mental model" of the boolean pref "for real". We could add a test specific to this checkbox but it's unlikely to be updated in future, and it'd be just as likely that the entire UI changes and/or the wording gets changed (in which case, the test might pass even if we want to flip the meaning of the checkbox, if we forget to do the implementation part of it). So tbh I don't think this is useful.
Comment 9•2 months ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 10•2 months ago
•
|
||
Would this be a good candidate for a 100.1 release should one come out?
Comment 11•2 months ago
|
||
If the regressing bug was in fact bug 1762775, this wouldn't affect 100. If you're saying that 100 is actually affected, then it sounds like we need to revisit the regressing bug.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•2 months ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #11)
If the regressing bug was in fact bug 1762775, this wouldn't affect 100.
Yeah it is definitely bug 1762775 — prior to that, the value
attribute did basically the same thing since it was a radiogroup, so it was semantically correct. I know for sure it was my mistake, I was worried about random testing stuff instead of actually reading the text lol.
Comment 13•2 months ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #11)
If the regressing bug was in fact bug 1762775, this wouldn't affect 100. If you're saying that 100 is actually affected, then it sounds like we need to revisit the regressing bug.
Ugh, my mistake. I didn't see from comment 9 that 100 is not affected. Sorry for the noise.
Comment 14•2 months ago
|
||
Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1762775
Comment 15•2 months ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9274749 [details]
Bug 1767367 - Fix inverted useDownloadDir pref. r=dao
Approved for 101.0b2.
Comment 16•2 months ago
|
||
bugherderuplift |
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 17•2 months ago
|
||
I have reproduced this issue using Firefox 101.0b1 on Win 10 x64.
I can confirm this issue is fixed, I verified using Firefox 101.0b2 and Firefox 102.0a1 on Win 10 x64, Ubuntu 20.04 x64 and macOS 10.15.
Updated•2 months ago
|
Description
•