Closed Bug 1780271 Opened 2 years ago Closed 2 years ago

Console errors on new 102 install after just setting up a gmx IMAP account

Categories

(Thunderbird :: Account Manager, defect)

Thunderbird 102
defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED INVALID

People

(Reporter: thomas8, Unassigned)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1780265 +++

102.0.3 (64-bit), Win10

Console looks pretty red during autoconfig of a GMX IMAP account on a fresh 102 install. See attachment; the most relevant listed here:

Ben B., some of these seem autoconfig related, anything we can do about that? Or anything we should tell gmx?


NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED: Component returned failure code: 0x80004001 (NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) [nsIAutoCompleteInput.popupElement] LoginManagerPrompter.jsm:90
observe resource://gre/modules/LoginManagerPrompter.jsm:90


XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </img>.
Location: https://www.gmx.net/.well-known/autoconfig/mail/config-v1.1.xml?emailaddress=johndoexxx%40gmx.de
Line Number 121, Column 7: config-v1.1.xml:121:7


XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </img>.
Location: https://www.gmx.net/autodiscover/autodiscover.xml
Line Number 121, Column 7: autodiscover.xml:121:7


[GET errors checking gmx.net, see attachment]

Flags: needinfo?(ben.bucksch)
Summary: Console errors on new 102 install after just setting up a gmail IMAP account → Console errors on new 102 install after just setting up a gmx IMAP account

The full log, just after going through autoconfig, before finish.

Hey Thomas,

errors are inherent in the autoconfig process, because we try multiple mechanisms and sources in getting a valid config, and most of these sources will not work, so they will error out. This is normal.

autodiscover.xml
XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </img>.

Here, GMX doesn't have an autoconfig file in the location, so they return a 404 with a HTML web page which shows the 404. (I don't know why we're not reacting to the 404, and consequently ignore the result, but it doesn't make a difference in practice.) The HTML is not valid XML, even less so valid autoconfig XML, so we ignore that result. The process is designed to ignore all invalid results.

So, these errors are harmless. The error console is for developers. The error messages are useful for people trying to diagnose the autoconfig process for their own domain, to see why it fails and how they can fix it. So, supressing the errors would be detrimental. But given that the error console is only for experts and not for end users, this doesn't hurt anybody. I am just sorry for the spam, I agree in that I don't like error console spam. But these are just a few, and they are actually useful for debugging.

Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(ben.bucksch)
Resolution: --- → INVALID

(I don't know about the LoginManagerPrompter.jsm. Maybe you could file a new bug just about that one?)

Pretty sure there's a bug for that one already. Annoyance, but harmless.

See Also: → 1780735

(In reply to Ben Bucksch (:BenB) from comment #2)
Thanks for fast and competent reply, that's appreciated.

I don't know why we're not reacting to the 404, and consequently ignore the result

Reacting to the 404 instead of parsing that with errors would seem useful to reduce console noise.

But given that the error console is only for experts and not for end users

Well, we do ask end users to report their error console, too...

this doesn't hurt anybody. I am just sorry for the spam, I agree in that I don't like error console spam.

Yes. The spam is the problem - real errors harder to find because of the noise.

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #4)

Pretty sure there's a bug for that one already. Annoyance, but harmless.

Couldn't find one here: https://mzl.la/3Pr5h0Z
Filed bug 1780735.

To me, the lack of proper error reporting is a big problem. (it definitely is not complete and lacking IMHO)
We need a better error reporting paradigm if "error console is only for expert".
Users ought to be aware of any underlying storage problem, etc. (File system is overflowing, disks are returning errors, remote file system is not responding, etc. thus causing I/O errors.)
It will be a long time until we can fix/clean up the failure to check for I/O system call errors and introduce proper error recovery. :-(
(I am afraid that initial TB design or coding was flawed.)
Just my 2cent worth.

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

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: