Closed Bug 252953 Opened 20 years ago Closed 20 years ago

check boxes don't show correctly for load images for originating site only

Categories

(Firefox :: Settings UI, defect)

x86
Windows 2000
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED WORKSFORME

People

(Reporter: mjl+bmo, Assigned: bugzilla)

References

Details

(Keywords: fixed-aviary1.0, regression)

Attachments

(1 file)

using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040724 Firefox/0.9.1+ to reproduce: 1. in tools, options, web features, check both "load images" and "for originating site only", and OK dialog 2. select tools, options, web features again. actual result: "load images" is unchecked, "for originating site only" is checked, but disabled. (pref is actually set correctly, and images are loaded for the originating site only) expected result: "load images" is checked, "originating site" checked and not disabled Expected result needs to be the initial state of the dialog when network.image.imageBehavior is 1.
Seems to be this change to pref-features.js (from bug 241705) that caused it: - case "1": gImagesRestricted.checked=true; - case "0": gImagesEnabled.checked=true; + case "1": + gImagesRestricted.checked = true; + break; + case "0": + gImagesEnabled.checked = true; + break; If the pref is set to 1, gImagesEnabled.checked should still be set to true, so falling through was the right thing to do. Either the break in case 1 should be removed, or gImagesEnabled.checked = true should be added to the first case.
Keywords: regression
Attached patch trivial patchSplinter Review
Patch to remove the first break and add a "fall through" comment to make it clear why. Afraid I don't have CVS or a tree set up, so patch doesn't have full paths etc
Attachment #154367 - Flags: review?(mconnor)
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0RC1?
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0PR? → blocking-aviary1.0?
I fixed this with a bunch of other stuff in bug 230462
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0?
Keywords: fixed-aviary1.0
Fine, but how about adding a "fall-through" comment (which I was told on IRC is the correct thing to do in terms of coding style) so that someone doesn't spot the sloppy missing break and "tidy it up" when they're passing by? Too late now I suppose...
Attachment #154367 - Flags: review?(mconnor)
Depends on: 230462
This was fixed, then rewritten :).
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
sorry for bugspam, long-overdue mass reassign of ancient QA contact bugs, filter on "beltznerLovesGoats" to get rid of this mass change
QA Contact: mconnor → preferences
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: