Form values not accessible from javascript

RESOLVED EXPIRED

Status

()

--
major
RESOLVED EXPIRED
14 years ago
13 years ago

People

(Reporter: todd, Unassigned)

Tracking

Trunk
x86
Linux
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Reporter)

Description

14 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Firefox/0.9.1

Please forgive me for submitting a duplicate bug, but when I tried reassigning
the old bug to this component it seems that Bugzilla didn't change the current
bug owner (unless this same person owns these two different areas).  I don't
know why the old bug (#250297) wasn't getting any attention, but this bug seems
to be pretty severe.  Any confirmation of the problem would be great.

===========================

The following HTML/javascript doesn't work properly:

-----------
<html>
<body>
<form>
<input type=radio name=foo value=1><span onclick="foo[0].checked=true"
style="cursor:pointer">Foo 1</span><br>
<input type=radio name=foo value=2><span onclick="foo[1].checked=true"
style="cursor:pointer">Foo 2</span>
</form>
</body>
</html>
-----------

When I click on the label "Foo 1" or "Foo 2", I expect the radio button to be
selected.  Instead I get a javascript error that reads "Error: foo is not
defined".  I verified that this works in [Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686;
en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115] and IE and Opera 7.51/Linux.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Save the HTML above
2.  Click on "Foo 1"
3.  View javascript error
Actual Results:  
Javascript error

Expected Results:  
Set the corresponding radio button

Comment 1

14 years ago
*** Bug 250297 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2

14 years ago
WFM, current trunk CVS, Linux.

Comment 3

14 years ago
Which application and build ID is it this doesn't work in?
Please also try the latest version of it.
Reporter: please file DOM bugs in the right component.

/be
Assignee: general → general
Component: JavaScript Engine → DOM: Level 0
(Reporter)

Comment 5

14 years ago
My build ID is Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626
Firefox/0.9.1 and my uname -a is "Linux example.com 2.6.3-15mdk #1 Fri Jul 2
22:09:29 MDT 2004 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux".  The application is Firefox
(as opposed to Thunderbird, which is how I understood your question about
application.)  I loaded the prebuilt binary from the site -
firefox-0.9.1-i686-linux-gtk2+xft-installer.tar.gz.  I see that there's a new
file up there, but when I download it and diff it with the previous file there's
no differences.  I also just verified within the last five minutes that the
0.9.2 build for Windows doesn't work either [Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT
5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040707 Firefox/0.8].  The user agent string seems
wrong on this build because the installation program and the About dialog
clearly say version 0.9.2.

I generally grab the prebuilt code since I don't have a ton of time right now to
pull down the tree and build it.  Any idea when a new build will come out?

Comment 6

14 years ago
(In reply to comment #5)

> no differences.  I also just verified within the last five minutes that the
> 0.9.2 build for Windows doesn't work either [Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT
> 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040707 Firefox/0.8].  The user agent string seems
> wrong on this build because the installation program and the About dialog
> clearly say version 0.9.2.

That is a known error if you install Firefox 0.9.2 ontop an old one, or didn´t
deinstall TBE or Multizilla, don´t know which one.
I assume you are using a UserAgentSwitcher extension, and that 0.8 gets spoofed
by your switcher.
(Reporter)

Comment 7

14 years ago
My Windows box has both Netscape 4.78 and Mozilla 1.6 installed, both of them
from pre-built binaries.  I didn't have any Firefox release installed before
this one.  Other than that I have nothing else installed related to Mozilla, so
unless the UserAgentSwitcher is installed automatically by some component then I
don't have it installed.

If this is a known issue, are there plans to fix this before the final release?
Cc'ing ben and sairuh in case something migration-related might be involved --
seems unlikely and we still need confirmation/reproducibility.

/be
I can definitely see the bug.  It's the scope chain thing again, jst.  Except
these are not <a> elements -- they're <span>s...  See bug 242557 for discussion.
Depends on: 242557
Is this a case where this works in IE not because of its scope chain setup, but
because it exposes elements by their name and/or id in the global scope?
(Reporter)

Comment 11

14 years ago
Would this be considered a blocking bug for the final release?  If so, would
someone be willing to update this?
This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → EXPIRED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.