284398 - Typo in nsDefaultCLH.js and nsMailDefaultHandler.js - nsISupporst

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Toolkit :: Startup and Profile System, defect)

Description

[Robert Strong (they/them - no direct email)]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050301 Firefox/1.0+
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050301 Firefox/1.0+

It appears that there is a typo of Components.interfaces.nsISupporst instead of
Components.interfaces.nsISupports in both nsDefaultCLH.js and
nsMailDefaultHandler.js.

http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/toolkit/components/nsDefaultCLH.js#38
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/mail/components/nsMailDefaultHandler.js#38


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[Robert Strong (they/them - no direct email)]

Ben - I noticed what appears to be a typo in these two files that you checked in
so I am cc'ing you.

Comment 2

[Robert Strong (they/them - no direct email)]

Attachment: patch (Checked in)

Comment 3

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Comment on attachment 176016 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (Checked in)

Wow. I'm surprised that doesn't seem to have affected the function.

Comment 4

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Comment on attachment 176016 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (Checked in)

No sr needed, you can just commit this (find somebody on
irc.mozilla.org#developers to do it).

Comment 5

[Ian Neal]

Comment on attachment 176016 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (Checked in)

Checking in mail/components/nsMailDefaultHandler.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/mail/components/nsMailDefaultHandler.js,v  <-- 
nsMailDefaultHandler.js
new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2
done
Checking in toolkit/components/nsDefaultCLH.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/components/nsDefaultCLH.js,v  <--  nsDefaultCLH.js
new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3
done

Comment 6

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Thank you Robert and IanN!

Comment 7

[Son Le]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (From update of attachment 176016 [details] [diff] [review] [edit])
> Wow. I'm surprised that doesn't seem to have affected the function.
> 
It did, see bug 279213.

Comment 8

[Son Le]

No it didn't - my bad.