1943293 - [WebCompat Reporter] The URL field is not validated in Report Broken site form

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Fenix :: General, defect)

Description

[Vasilica Tamas QA [:vtamas]]

Attachment: InvalidURL.mp4

Steps to reproduce

1. Open a webpage and tap on 3 dots menu -> Report broken site...
2. Delete the pre-populated Url.
3. Type in the URL field an invalid address, that doesn't respect the required format.

Expected behavior

"Send" button is disabled and an error message is displayed warning the user that the entered search string URL is invalid.

Actual behavior

No error is displayed and the form is successfully submitted.

Device information

• Firefox version: Firefox Nightly 136 (2025-01-22)
• Android device model: Samsung S24 Ultra (Android 14), Xiaomi 12T (Android 12)

Comment 1

[Nicholas Poon [:Nick]]

I'm going to confirm this behaviour because in the figma, we only get the scenario where the URL field is empty

Update: Based on discussions with product and the WebCompat team, we should do URL validation as well in the form

Comment 2

[Nicholas Poon [:Nick]]

Attachment: Bug 1943293 - [WebCompat Reporter] Validate URL on the Report Broken Site form

Comment 3

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/c2f72fbc4476
[WebCompat Reporter] Validate URL on the Report Broken Site form r=android-reviewers,007

Comment 4

[Serban Stanca [:SerbanS]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c2f72fbc4476

Comment 5

[Vasilica Tamas QA [:vtamas]]

Attachment: URLValidation.JPEG

Tested this issue on Firefox Nightly 136 (2025-01-29) using a Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra (Android 14) and noticed that the URL validation checks only the protocol. Shouldn't the URL be validated also in terms of hostname?

Comment 6

[Nicholas Poon [:Nick]]

Hi Vasilica,
Thanks for verifying. I took a look at the desktop reporter's behaviour and it seems that the validation there also doesn't check for protocol. I also saw that we used to have a more stringent URL check method but it seems that it was removed for performance reasons so this is the biggest reason as to why I didn't also check for protocol

Comment 7

[Vasilica Tamas QA [:vtamas]]

(In reply to Nicholas Poon [:Nick] from comment #6)

Hi Vasilica,
Thanks for verifying. I took a look at the desktop reporter's behaviour and it seems that the validation there also doesn't check for protocol. I also saw that we used to have a more stringent URL check method but it seems that it was removed for performance reasons so this is the biggest reason as to why I didn't also check for protocol

Thanks Nicholas for confirming this behavior! Based on your response I can mark this as Verified.