327305 - Include Gecko version and build ID in extension description

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core Graveyard :: XForms, enhancement)

Description

[Allan Beaufour]

I think we should include the Gecko version and the build ID in the extension description, so that users easier can figure out whether the extension they have installed actually mathces their product, and which date it's from.

Comment 1

[Allan Beaufour]

Attachment: Patch

This also includes a targetApplication for SeaMonkey.

Comment 2

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=211996) [edit]

Checked in to trunk.

As this also adds a targetApplication tag for SeaMonkey, somebody should probably verify that it still works on SeaMonkey. Any volunteers? :)

Comment 3

[Giacomo Magnini]

If you tell me how I could test this, I'll be glad to test it and report back here.

Comment 4

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #3)
> If you tell me how I could test this, I'll be glad to test it and report back
> here.

I could also do it myself, but I'm lazy and forgets stuff :)

Just download a nightly trunk build of SeaMonkey and the XForms extension, use a clean profile and see if you can install the extension and run one of the sample forms.

You have to wait for the next cycle of builds though. So after Saturday or Sunday is probably best.

Comment 5

[Giacomo Magnini]

What if I built my own SM + XF? :)
Followed instructions from XForms Project page (canvas, xforms and schema-validation options added). ;)

Comment 6

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #5)
> What if I built my own SM + XF? :)
> Followed instructions from XForms Project page (canvas, xforms and
> schema-validation options added). ;)

Ok, then :) It works then I guess?

Comment 7

[Giacomo Magnini]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Ok, then :) It works then I guess?
 
Seems so... :)
If you have more bugs with SM testing needs, please add me to CC list and write down some exact testing instruction: I'll be glad to report back!

Comment 8

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Ok, then :) It works then I guess?
> 
> Seems so... :)
> If you have more bugs with SM testing needs, please add me to CC list and write
> down some exact testing instruction: I'll be glad to report back!

Ok. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for testing it.

Comment 9

[Allan Beaufour]

How about pushing this to branches too? When we reach 1.0 we should kill it on releases, but for now it makes sense I think.

Comment 10

[aaronr]

(In reply to comment #9)
> How about pushing this to branches too? When we reach 1.0 we should kill it on
> releases, but for now it makes sense I think.
> 

I don't really mind if it moves to the branches as long as you open up a bug to make sure that we remove it before 1.0 ships.

Comment 11

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > How about pushing this to branches too? When we reach 1.0 we should kill it on
> > releases, but for now it makes sense I think.
> > 
> 
> I don't really mind if it moves to the branches as long as you open up a bug to
> make sure that we remove it before 1.0 ships.

Done so. I'll just wait until after 1.5.0.2 hits the streets.