Closed Bug 282561 Opened 20 years ago Closed 19 years ago

Cannot delete text from file using a PHP script except on Internet Explorer.

Categories

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Product:
Firefox
Component:
General
Platform:
x86
Windows XP
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED EXPIRED

People

(Reporter: trustpunk, Assigned: bugzilla)

Details

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

I put a PHP script on my server that allows me to delete certain text from a
flat file database and only Internet Explorer allows me to do this , I posted
the PHP 
script so you can test it out your self if you want , I don't understand why IE v6
allows me to delete from a text file but Firefox v1.0 or below doesn't. 

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
This link should explain the problem more clearly I hope.
http://www.dmcinsights.com/phorum/read.php?5,13308

Note: If you look towards the bottom , you will see what
type of issues I am dealing with without me typing it. 
Actual Results:  
In Firefox , from the following link above , that PHP script should have deleted
a user from the flat file database when I click Delete but it just stays their
without deleting while on Internet Explorer it deletes the text , weird. :/

Expected Results:  
It should have told the POST data being submited to delete the text.
From your description, this cannot be a bug in Firefox.

For help in using Firefox, please see
http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/ (linked from
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ ).

User support can also be found at these links:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=106431
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=38


(In reply to comment #1)
> From your description, this cannot be a bug in Firefox.
> 
> For help in using Firefox, please see
> http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/ (linked from
> http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ ).
> 
> User support can also be found at these links:
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=106431
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=38
> 

Ok you say this isn't a bug right , how is it not a bug when Internet Explorer
understands my PHP script but Firefox totally ignores it , how do you recommend
my setup as far as the HTML form code , im just curious. Thank You!
> 

(In reply to comment #1)
> From your description, this cannot be a bug in Firefox.
> 
> For help in using Firefox, please see
> http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/ (linked from
> http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ ).
> 
> User support can also be found at these links:
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=106431
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=38
> 
> 


(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > From your description, this cannot be a bug in Firefox.
> > 
> > [ ... ]
> Ok you say this isn't a bug right, ...

Please be fair, I left open the question of whether there is a defect
in Firefox. I am saying that you are not describing one, or the
slightly weaker: you are not describing one that I can reasonably
expect to recognise.

> ... how is it not a bug when Internet Explorer
> understands my PHP script ...

Firefox (and I expect your alternative browser as well) do not set
out to understand PHP scripts. That is the job of the server. If
Firefox does not understand PHP that is not a defect in Firefox.

> ... but Firefox totally ignores it, ...

If that is part of your defect report we are going to need to
know what you mean by totally ignores. Firefox is meant to 'totally
ignore' some things, videlicet:

<!--

	This is a comment, it is within comment open/close delimiters:
	
		-- --

-->

Comments are (almost) totally ignored; for certain, markup within
them is not recognised.

> how do you recommend my setup as far as the HTML form code, ...

I can't parse that sentence. Is the answer: "As far as possible"?

> im just curious. Thank You!

However, come across not like an elephant's child merely lacking an
ostrich with a compatible flailsome, wailsome hand, but just
argumentative. Now I have once used the expression "A schoolboy
level riposte", and even within parentheses, it was taken as an
insult (Bug 278175 "Not loading Site properly"), so I guess that my
phrase has a stronger meaning outside Yorkshire than I anticipated.

I'll assume that I am writing to an software manager with 40 or more
years of experience, who reports to (or is) a CxO, has completed
successfully dozens of projects, controls a vast staff and has hired
tens of thousands developers and perhaps (somewhat reluctantly)
fired a few thousand over those years. Perhaps you are a
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GrandMasterProgrammer

Such people evidently write in this way:

	Ok you say this isn't a bug right , how is it not a bug when
	Internet Explorer understands my PHP script but Firefox totally
	ignores it , how do you recommend my setup as far as the HTML form
	code , im just curious. Thank You!

Here's why I doubt that this report corresponds to/matches/indicates 
a defect in Firefox.

1. The version you quote is 'Gecko/20041107', 

	Bugzilla reports should be duplicated in a recent build, one
	only a day or so old. See:
	
	"Next, be sure to reproduce your bug using a recent build. Engineers
	tend to be most interested in problems affecting the code base that
	they're actively working on. After all, the bug you're reporting may
	already be fixed."
	
	https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=bug-writing.html
	
	(You say that you can reliably and repeatedly reproduce your
	problem at will).
	
2. You refer to your 'server'

	This raises in my mind at least a question as to whether this is
	(even if only in part) a server problem. You should consider
	explaining why you think that there is no server side aspect to
	your problem. When you searched Bugzilla for Bug Reports similar
	to yours -
	
	"Before you enter your bug, use Bugzilla's search page to determine
	whether the defect you've discovered is a known, already-reported
	bug. If your bug is the 37th duplicate of a known issue, you're more
	likely to annoy the engineer. (Annoyed engineers fix fewer bugs.)"	
	
	https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=bug-writing.html

	(Note: If anyone is actually reading this, there may be a typo at the
	end of thatparagraph).
	
	- did you find many references to server problems? Were many of those
	bugs RESOLVED FIXED? Obviously, this is not black and white: Perhaps
	Firefox is for some reason sending back the wrong incantation.
	
3. You refer to a 'flat file database'

	See http://philip.greenspun.com/panda/databases-choosing for the
	second page Google gave me for my search on 'choosing a flat file
	database for a web server' (the first hit turned out to have a pop under
	telling me that I wanted less spam e-mail, which is Bug 282382 
        "javascript pop up / under bypasses protection with doc.write").
	
	When you consider that even the cheapest linux systems, such as Gentoo,
	come with MySQL conveniently packaged and ready to go, the case for 
        instead using a flat file database for anything has be very strong. If 
        I was already using PHP, I can't think of any case where I would 
        prefer a flat file database over MySQL. It is your credibility on 
        the line. If you need help with a flat file database, you ought to 
        consider explaining why you chose it over LAMP.
	
4. Synthesis of above: It is not clear why your server side script's failure
to delete a line from a file has anything to do with the choice of browser!

	"In Firefox , from the following link above , that PHP script
	should have deleted a user from the flat file database when I
	click Delete but it just stays their without deleting while on
	Internet Explorer it deletes the text , weird. :/"
	
	See http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#writewell
	
5. You haven't shown that you have done your research.

	Google? A reduced testcase? Any testcase? Searched Bugzilla?
	Asked on Mozillazine?
	
6. No error messages.

	A totally silent failure? Nothing from Firefox? Nothing in the
	server logs? Nothing from PHP? ...
	
	What diagnostics do you have? Ethereal? Some method of dumping
	or displaying the POST variables received by the PHP script?
	
7. (Opposite end of the boat to 4) Most Bug Reports refer to some rendering 
error or erroneous behaviour within Firefox. Yours does not. Compare:
	
	Bug 281164 "FireFox (as oppossed to IE) fails to render page"
	Bug 281190 "background image in main frame is not displayed"
	Bug 281429 "background images do not respect <base href=...> element in <body>"
	Bug 281479 "Novice - failure of GIF to load, other, similar, reports not helpful"
	Bug 281750 "None of the buttons work at http://www.euroleopard.com/"
	Bug 282369 "Page display messed up"
	Bug 282373 "try to view pictures and cant make them bigger by clicking on them"

	Some of these looked liked bugs, and proved not to be, others didn't 
        and in fact were, some are in a curious limbo at least one looked like 
        not-a-bug, and wasn't.
	
	Now Bugzilla gets 90 or so new reports each day, so you have
	plenty of really fresh material to guide you in creating a Bug
	Report so that it is if not Best of Breed, at least in the first
	division

	Cognate to this observation is the undoubted fact that Bugzilla needs 
        some sort of automated prognostication, or an automatic Bug Classifier, 
        See Bug 280786 "bayesian analysis for auto-categorization of bugs". 
        Suppose that Bugs were to classified as 'Looks like a True Bill' vs 
        'Doesn't Look like a True Bill', where do you think your would come, 
        and why.
	
	I think that there is next to no chance of your report being 
        classified as a True Bill, and I am explaining why. In a moment, I 
        will suggest how you might repair this report

8. (See 2 and 6) Are you suggesting that the server is correctly
running your PHP scripts and producing valid HTML or XML, but that
the pesky Firefox is somehow parsing it incorrectly, and sending
back the wrong incantation. If so, you should at least consider
verifying all other the links in that chain. Once you have done so,
you are in a much stronger position to assert that the problem is
with Firefox.

	Perhaps you are wondering why if I have an idea as to what needs doing
	next, I don't get on with it. Let me see: i) I am not convinced that it
	a good use of Bugzilla, ii) The necessary files and services are on your
	server, iii) There is no test case or road map.

	Assume for the moment, that your first job is to attract some
	attention. Please see "Why Questions Go Unanswered" 
	http://perl.plover.com/Questions.html . Whilst there is a lot worth
	reading, concentrate on this little vignette:
	
		"I want to accomplish X.
		I thought I might be able to use facility Y.
		But Y doesn't seem like it's quite right, because of Z.
		What should I use instead of Y, or how can I overcome Z?"
	
	See Bug 282573 "Element created in a page from popup can't open popup"
	
		"I want to accomplish 'CREATE DOM ELEMENTS HAVING ONCLICK HANDLER, IN AN
OPENER PAGE'
		I thought I might be able to use facility INNER_HTML.
		But INNER_HTML doesn't seem like it's quite right, because of 'HANDLER IS NOT
ESTABLISHED'.
		What should I use instead of INNER_HTML, or how can I overcome 'HANDLER IS NOT
ESTABLISHED'?"
		
	The reporter of that Bug got a work around.	
		
	Are you able to cast your problem into the same form.
	
		"I want to accomplish 'DELETE USER FROM DATABASE'.
		I thought I might be able to use facility Y.
		But Y doesn't seem like it's quite right, because of Z.
		What should I use instead of Y, or how can I overcome Z?"
	
	What is your Y? ... PHP? 'FORM ACTION=POST'?
	What is your Z? ... Do you know, I can't say. I can't put my finger 
                on where your problem lies.
	
	That really is why I can't help you. I can't see the problem through 
        your eyes, this is the case whether or not there is a defect in Firefox.

Here are my suggestions:

	Add some sort of tracing or logging to your server side scripts, so that
	you know, and can tell me what the script expects and needs in order to 
        run  properly. In short give your project the characteristic of 
        scrutability
	
	Maybe create a dummy database or 
        http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CategoryMockObjects .
	Something you can fiddle with, tell whether you are sending it good
	stuff, and can use without damaging your data
	
	Create a short HTML page that can be loaded into Firefox and as a 
        testcase, determine quickly and reliably whether everything else 
        is working.
	
	(My guess is that when you do this you will in that process overcome
	whatever your Z is, whether or not you ever identify your Z).
	
	Find someone on Mozillazine to help you. Please use honey methods 
        to attract attention. The slightest hint that you want a bug for 
        bug replacement for some other browser will lose you all your honey.
	
	If you have a simple testcase, which clearly and indisputable fails on a
	recent Firefox, then attach it to this bug, preferably with an 
        indication of why you think that the problem lies with Firefox

My objective in all this, I have summarised in Bug 279696 'Please
describe "what is bug" and "b.m.o is not Help center" in bug writing
guidelines': I would like you to become so thrilled by the concept
that with Firefox one can pretty much guarantee to identify and fix
all problems within one's sphere, that you decide to sign up with
the Firefox community and help fix other people's problems. Perhaps
I am not doing very well.

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
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → EXPIRED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.