368127 - DOM inspector not detected using getService()

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 306340

(Other Applications :: DOM Inspector, defect)

Description

[Mark Clements]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

Since upgrading to Firefox 2.0 and the latest version of the Web Developer toolbar, the WDT reports that the DOM inspector is not installed, and certain functionality is missing.  The DOM inspector IS installed, however, and working fine.

The author, Chris Pederick, advises that uninstalling FF, deleting the old FF folder and reinstalling will fix the problem, however that is an unsatisfactory work-around and does not solve the problem (which seems to affect quite a lot of users of this extension).

The code he uses to check if the DOM inspector is installed is as follows:

// Returns true if the DOM Inspector is available
function webdeveloper_isDOMInspectorAvailable()
{
    try
    {
        Components.classes["@mozilla.org/inspector/dom-utils;1"].getService(Components.interfaces.inIDOMUtils);

        return true;
    }
    catch(exception)
    {
        return false;
    }
}

I am aware that this may be a bug within his code, but because it looks so simple and the author claims that the code should work, I am logging it here as a bug in the DOM inspector detection.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[Mark Clements]

oops - a bit misleading in my comment above.

> The author, Chris Pederick, advises that uninstalling FF, deleting the old FF
> folder and reinstalling will fix the problem, however that is an unsatisfactory
> work-around and does not solve the problem (which seems to affect quite a lot
> of users of this extension).

It does solve the problem, but what I meant is that it is not a 'solution' but a work-around, and that it should not be necessary to reinstall to fix this problem.

Comment 2

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

yes, that code should work, but because of Bug 306340 it might not.