The default bug view has changed. See this FAQ.

DOM Inspector not published to addons.mozilla.org

VERIFIED FIXED

Status

Release Engineering
Other
P1
major
VERIFIED FIXED
13 years ago
4 years ago

People

(Reporter: David Adam, Assigned: sdwilsh)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(2 attachments, 3 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

13 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041110 Firefox/1.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041110 Firefox/1.0

While we can install it through the installation process, there is no way to
install the DOM Inspector post-installation through u.m.o - is there still an
.xpi for the DOM Inspector that is compatible with Fx 1.0?

If so, can it be listed?

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

13 years ago
If there is, is hasn't been submitted and I haven't seen a maintained XPI
available for it. It's probably located in the Windows-XPI or Linux-XPI
directories on the FTP under releases for Firefox 1.0 en-US.
Whiteboard: need-info

Comment 2

13 years ago
I do not see a separate download for the DOMI XPI.  Even if it did exist, we'd
have to make sure we got the right localization, which UMO cannot currently
handle.  
Target Milestone: --- → 2.1

Comment 3

13 years ago
Clearing the target milestone since it's invalid and makes no sense for the
product at all.
Target Milestone: 2.1 → ---
It might be nice to ask us DOM Inspector enthusiasts...
Don't know where this one comes from:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/extensions/inspectorwidget/inspectorwidget-1.2-fx.xpi

Comment 6

13 years ago
Please see https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=63 for more
info.  I'd probably mark this as a duplicate of whatever put that one in. 
Although I'd like to see an official one from mozilla.org.  Like maybe one from
the official 1.0 release (hint hint)
Assignee: nobody → Bugzilla-alanjstrBugs

Updated

13 years ago
Assignee: Bugzilla-alanjstrBugs → nobody

Updated

12 years ago
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true

Comment 7

12 years ago
I don't see an XPI in
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.0/win32/xpi/

Comment 8

12 years ago
Here's the one for 1.0.1.  I guess adt stands for Advanced Developer Tools
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.0.1/win32/xpi/adt.xpi
It's listed now!
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Comment 10

11 years ago
(In reply to comment #9)
> It's listed now!
> 
Where?

Comment 11

11 years ago
All I could find on AMO were these entries:
* https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2334/ "DOM Inspector Linux" (nicely not downloadable from a windows machine)
* https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1806/ "DOM Inspector" (saying it's compatible with Thunderbird 1.5 - 1.5.0.* Windows)
* https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1837/ "DOM Inspector - Mac OS X" (this one claiming compatibility with Thunderbird 1.5 - 1.5.0.* on all OS).

So while it's now true that DOMi is listed as an extension, I think that reporter expected the outcome of this bug to be a _single_ item listed on AMO, compatible with all apps (at least Fx+TB) on all major OS.

Comment 12

11 years ago
That confirms it's just not me being stupid then :)
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
AMO BUGSPAM FOR COMPONENT MOVE AND DELETE (FILTER ME)
Component: Listings → Web Site

Comment 14

11 years ago
AMO bugspam. Correcting QA contacts on OLD bugs (mozilla.update@update.bugs)

-> Correct QA contact (web-ui@add-ons.bugs)

Filtermeplzkthx
QA Contact: mozilla.update → web-ui
This isn't something we can really fix on the AMO side.  I think it's a build RFE to package and push DOMI packages as part of releases, excited as I'm sure they are to see this land in their laps.
Assignee: nobody → build
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Component: Public Pages → Build & Release
Product: addons.mozilla.org → mozilla.org
QA Contact: web-ui → preed
Summary: DOM Inspector not listed as extension → DOM Inspector not published to addons.mozilla.org
Version: unspecified → other
Duplicate of this bug: 367621
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Blocks: 333172
(Assignee)

Comment 17

10 years ago
Realistically, if we get Bug 333172 fixed, I should just be able to copy the xpi we have with our installers, and it should just "work" once we remove http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/extensions/inspector/install.rdf#53 from install.rdf (the comments would go too).

The question is do we want to have a build script to do this, or will I be doing it by hand?
Assignee: build → comrade693+bmo
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
No longer blocks: 333172
Depends on: 333172
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Blocks: 356916
(Assignee)

Comment 18

10 years ago
Just updating.  A month or two ago I built a version out of the firefox 1.8 branch and mrbkap (I think) was using it at IBM.  Said it worked like a charm.  I still need to test and see if it will then work in Thunderbird as well, and if not, we need to build the inspector components in it as well.
Depends on: 379109
There aren't any binaries in DOMI from the 1.8.1 branch forward.
(Assignee)

Comment 20

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #19)
> There aren't any binaries in DOMI from the 1.8.1 branch forward.
> 

Yeah, but what I haven't investigated is if other applications build the binary components that inspector uses or not.  Specifically, I'm looking at these:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/inspector/
(Assignee)

Comment 21

10 years ago
Ok, so I just installed a compiled version of the DOMi from the 1.8 branch into tbird 2, and I get too errors in the error console:
Error: undefined entity
Source File: chrome://communicator/content/tasksOverlay.xul
Line: 17, Column: 3
Source Code:
  <key id="key_navigator"    key="&navigatorCmd.commandkey;"   command="Tasks:Navigator" modifiers="accel"/>--^
Error: undefined entity
Source File: chrome://editor/content/editorTasksOverlay.xul
Line: 59, Column: 5
Source Code:
    <key id="key_editor" key="&editorCmd.commandkey;" command="Tasks:Editor" modifiers="accel"/>----^

I'll look into those and file bug(s) accordingly.
(Assignee)

Comment 22

10 years ago
I had a nice lengthy comment, but Minefield crashed :(
So, to summarize, we have a few issues that are coming up.
1) We cannot use trunks version of DOMi on the branch because of interface changes.
2) branch is overlaying things it shouldn't be for thunderbird, so it doesn't work there.
3) AMO doesn't even allow for different versions of an extension to target different versions of an application.  See Bug 363050

In other words, two if fixable, but because of 1 and 3 we cannot have DOMi available to everyone easily.

There's also the issue of some extension on AMO already using the same id as ours, but I imagine that could be fixed.
Depends on: 363050

Comment 23

10 years ago
it's theoretically possible to take branch interfaces, rename them, commit them as privates in domi and write code in domi that qis to both interface names.

a renamed interface would be something like nsIFoo_MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH

that's of course harder if you need to deal w/ linking or string issues, but I think that domi should probably be using glue for strings, and not linking against things in gecko, so it should be sufficient (minus some minor code bloat).

It should also be possible to have two .dlls generated instead of one and have one fail to register when it can't lookup the interface it needs or something.
(Assignee)

Comment 24

10 years ago
that sounds hard :)

I think I could also reimplement the interface that has changed in JavaScript, and we could just remove the C++ code on trunk.  When we register, it will get the one in the extension.  I'll see if I can look into that today.
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: 299716
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Severity: normal → major
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: 388252
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Duplicate of this bug: 399617
QA Contact: mozpreed → build
Duplicate of this bug: 339174

Updated

10 years ago
Blocks: 339229
Found during Build&Release triage. Not sure what is for Build team. Seems like this should be reassigned to addons.mozilla.org? 
(Assignee)

Comment 28

10 years ago
It's not clear where this bug should live, but I'm certainly the owner of it :/
John, this is definitely something that build&release will need to do, because it requires building DOMI and signing the .xpi... how we get it to addons at that point is mostly immaterial
Assignee: comrade693+bmo → nobody
Priority: -- → P3
(Assignee)

Comment 30

10 years ago
Does it really need to be signed?  Do we sign any other mozilla.org addons like Chatzilla?
It should be signed, just as it's signed when shipped as part of the dominant installation mechanism for Fx2.  Let's not regress here.
How do we currently sign addons? Its not part of any manual build&release instructions that I know of, and is definitely not part of any automation so far. Any pointers would be great! 

As an aside, we installed renewed keys on build machines last week. One of those keys was a mystery key, which eventually turned out to be a key for signing addons/extensions that had been expired since june2007, and as far as we can tell, has never ever used since it was first created, or since it expired. For details, see bug#401284

  
As noted on IRC a while back, http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:Signing_a_XPI
 
We have to figure out a good way to build the DOMI .xpi before we go about signing it, of course... on trunk it should be really easy to make a standalone DOMI configure/build process (--enable-application=extensions/inspector)... on branches we'd have to use a bit more hackery... who owns DOMI and can decide what versions we want to publish on AMO?
(Assignee)

Comment 34

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #33)
> As noted on IRC a while back,
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Code_snippets:Signing_a_XPI
For what it's worth, I couldn't get those instructions to work when I tried them ~a year ago, but things may have changed/gotten easier.

> We have to figure out a good way to build the DOMI .xpi before we go about
> signing it, of course... on trunk it should be really easy to make a standalone
> DOMI configure/build process (--enable-application=extensions/inspector)... on
> branches we'd have to use a bit more hackery... who owns DOMI and can decide
> what versions we want to publish on AMO?
When I want a standalone xpi of the DOMi, I just |make -C extensions/inspector| in my object directory, and there's a nice xpi sitting in dist/xpi-stage/

Our branch situation isn't pretty, and I know for a fact that the branch doesn't work in Thunderbird due to some missing entities.  That would have to be resolved first.  Also, we can only have one version up on amo - we cannot offer a version for 1.8.1 and one for 1.9.  The trunk version of DOMi depends on binary changes, so that xpi won't work on 1.8.1, and the xpi generated from 1.8.1 essentially sucks compared to what's in 1.9.

As for who owns DOMi - there's no official owner.  timeless was the one doing reviews for the most part, then I started to take over for that.

Comment 35

9 years ago
Shawn:

When I search the a.m.o site for DOM inspector, I do see a version that mscott posted that is supposed to work with Thunderbird.

Are you saying that this Thunderbird-specific version is not working as well?

Also, now that mscott is leaving mozilla.org, do we know if he intends to maintain that as a contributor?
(Assignee)

Comment 36

9 years ago
Note, this bug is not yet resolved, as in I haven't yet put it on amo.  It's on the todo list (hopefully next week actually).

I don't ever recall implying it wasn't working for thunderbird.  I also was unaware of mscott leaving mozilla.org (he did leave the Mozilla corporation, which is a separate entity).

The version I'll be posting to amo should be compatible with thunderbird 3.0 (anything built off of gecko 1.9).
Assignee: nobody → sdwilsh

Comment 37

9 years ago
(good point about mscott. When I worked for/on mozilla, there was no mozilla.com... what I meant was, I as someone that reads a bit of news, it wasn't clear to me if he was going to keep fixing it, whatever capacities he retains in any mozilla organizations...)
Now that bug 339229 has been "fixed", this should be a top priority, imho, considering DOMi isn't being shipped anymore.
Flags: blocking1.9?
Priority: P3 → P1
Hardware: PC → All
(Assignee)

Comment 39

9 years ago
It doesn't really matter if it's blocking or not...I'm fixing it this week regardless...
(Assignee)

Updated

9 years ago
Depends on: 417697
(Assignee)

Updated

9 years ago
Depends on: 419680
(Assignee)

Comment 40

9 years ago
Created attachment 305819 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.0

This has the necessary changes to get DOMi working as a standalone add-on.  Looking for r and sr, even though I can't request both.
Attachment #305819 - Flags: review?(mconnor)
(Assignee)

Comment 41

9 years ago
Created attachment 305820 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.0

This has the necessary changes to get DOMi working as a standalone add-on.  Looking for r and sr, even though I can't request both.
Attachment #305820 - Flags: review?(mconnor)
(Assignee)

Comment 42

9 years ago
Comment on attachment 305819 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.0

hey - I only clicked submit once :(
Attachment #305819 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #305819 - Flags: review?(mconnor)
(Assignee)

Comment 43

9 years ago
Created attachment 305821 [details]
generated xpi v1.0

the associated xpi

Comment 44

9 years ago
Comment on attachment 305820 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.0

>diff --git a/extensions/inspector/install.rdf b/extensions/inspector/install.rdf
>--- a/extensions/inspector/install.rdf
>+++ b/extensions/inspector/install.rdf
>@@ -1,19 +1,17 @@
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
>-
>-#filter substitution
> 
> <RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>      xmlns:em="http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#">
>   <Description about="urn:mozilla:install-manifest">
>     <em:id>inspector@mozilla.org</em:id>
>-    <em:version>@EXTENSION_VERSION@</em:version>
>+    <em:version>2.0.0</em:version>

Why not leave the filter and use DOMi_VERSION here?
(Assignee)

Comment 45

9 years ago
Created attachment 305825 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.1

that's a fair point
Attachment #305820 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #305825 - Flags: review?(mconnor)
Attachment #305820 - Flags: review?(mconnor)
(Assignee)

Comment 46

9 years ago
Created attachment 305826 [details]
generated xpi v1.1
Attachment #305821 - Attachment is obsolete: true

Updated

9 years ago
Attachment #305825 - Flags: review?(mconnor) → review+

Updated

9 years ago
Flags: tracking1.9? → blocking1.9?
(Assignee)

Comment 47

9 years ago
Checking in extensions/inspector/Makefile.in;
new revision: 1.24; previous revision: 1.23
Checking in extensions/inspector/install.rdf;
new revision: 1.17; previous revision: 1.16

Posted to AMO
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6622
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago9 years ago
No longer depends on: 363050
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: need-info

Comment 48

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #36)
> Note, this bug is not yet resolved, as in I haven't yet put it on amo.  It's on
> the todo list (hopefully next week actually).
> 
> I don't ever recall implying it wasn't working for thunderbird.  I also was
> unaware of mscott leaving mozilla.org (he did leave the Mozilla corporation,
> which is a separate entity).
> 
> The version I'll be posting to amo should be compatible with thunderbird 3.0
> (anything built off of gecko 1.9).
> 

I'm afraid not.
Still does not work for Tbird trunk.
Well, it does partially work, but no info if the Dom nodes pane, other panes seem OK
Error console:
Error: XPCU is not defined
Source File: chrome://inspector/content/viewers/accessibleEvents/accessibleEvents.js
Line: 180
As well as others errors, that I can't reproduce at the moment.

Comment 49

9 years ago
Hmmm..
That error above seems to stick,(keeps re occuring when cleared) even if Domi is closed.
This persisted until I restarted TB trunk.
Here is the other error:
Error: viewer is undefined
Source File: chrome://inspector/content/viewers/dom/dom.js
Line: 71

Comment 50

9 years ago
this is so freaking we todd ed! We can't keep the DOM Inspector seperate from the main browser. I'm downgrading to 2 and never moving up. Possibly even never using Firefox again.
(Assignee)

Comment 51

9 years ago
Please file any follow-up issues as new bugs.  I didn't change any code in the DOM inspector by doing this, so these issues existed before the changes in this bug.

Comment 52

9 years ago
Sorry for the spam, but this is holding at least 2 Tbird extension writers up that I know of.
Error: null has no properties
Source File: chrome://inspector/content/viewers/dom/dom.js
Line: 87
That's with the first invocation of Domi

Comment 53

9 years ago
> Sorry for the spam, but this is holding at least 2 Tbird extension writers up
> that I know of.

If you use the SeaMonkey version of the trunk DOM Inspector using the procedure detailed in <http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=19> (Getting a working DOM Inspector in Thunderbird 3.0a trunk) Do you still get these errors?

Comment 54

9 years ago
For thunderbird -> bug 254031.

Updated

9 years ago
Great to see that DOMi is now official available on AMO.

Verified.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Shawn, when I install DOMi the installation panel states an unknown author for that extension. Could you please solve this issue? Shall I file a new bug therefor?

Comment 57

9 years ago
For the author to show up, the extension has to be signed.
Yes, file a separate bug for signing it, and discuss it there.
Depends on: 420767

Updated

9 years ago
Depends on: 421006

Updated

9 years ago
Flags: blocking1.9?
Depends on: 471481
Product: mozilla.org → Release Engineering
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.