Closed
Bug 384716
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
xbl fields override arbitrary js properties when the binding is eventually attached
Categories
(Core :: XBL, defect)
Core
XBL
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
INCOMPLETE
People
(Reporter: asaf, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression)
In places menu.xml, we do something like this: document.addBinding(popup, MENU_URI); popup._containerNodesMap = this._containerNodesMap; If I switch the order here, popup._containerNodesMap is nulled out. This is even worse on non-mac because the binding is applied asynchronously (as a result of |popup.setAttribute("type", "places")|), see bug 384690.
Flags: blocking1.9?
Reporter | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Severity: normal → major
Reporter | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Summary: regression: Arbitrary JS properties are removed once when the xbl binding for an element is attached. → regression: Arbitrary JS properties are removed once the xbl binding for an element is attached.
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
Any chance to get the regression range?
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
aha, ignore me. So here's what really happens here, 1) The xbl binding has a <filed> named _foo, set to null. 2) when we set newElement._foo, newElement is not in the document yet, thus the element is not bounded; explicit addBinding calls are ignored too. 3) when the element is eventually bounded, it's _foo field override whatever newElement._foo was set too. This is arguably the correct behavior I guess...
Reporter | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Summary: regression: Arbitrary JS properties are removed once the xbl binding for an element is attached. → xbl fields override arbitrary js properties when the binding is eventually attached
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Actually, even if the field isn't around, explicit call to addBinding nulls out the js property; implicit attaching (via css) seems to work fine though.
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
If it's a regression, what's the regression range? In any case, where's a testcase?
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
Dunno, bug 337855 exposed these behaviors, I'm no longer sure at all that it is a regression (well, I'd hope comment 3 is).
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
Interesting. I'd still love a testcase and regression range for whatever issues you see here.
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
Not a blocker based on the info available. If we'd get a regression range, or testcases showing that this really is a regression, then please renominate.
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9-
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
Bug 372769 might fix this bug as currently summarized. Hard to tell without a testcase... Care to attach one?
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
Still waiting on testcase to resolve this.
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
No response, no testcase... resolving incomplete.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•