Closed Bug 391633 Opened 16 years ago Closed 16 years ago
Extend blocklist to support plugins
mwu has added support for blocklisting plugins in bug 330511.
Bug 271559 actually adds the code that reads and uses plugins blocklisting information from blocklist.xml.
Depends on: 271559
Is there anything about plugins that extends past the scope of the current blocklist.xml schema? See: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Extension_Blocklisting:Code_Design
The plugin blocklisting update to the blocklist.xml schema are fairly simple. Here's an example: <blocklist> <pluginItems> <pluginItem> <!-- All match tags must match a plugin to blocklist a plugin --> <match name="name" exp="some plugin"/> <match name="description" exp="1[.]2[.]3"/> </pluginItem> </pluginItems> </blocklist> The name attribute in the match tag can match any string attribute defined in http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/modules/plugin/base/public/nsIPluginTag.idl . The exp attribute contains a regular expression which is used to match an attribute in the plugin tag. If all the match tags in a pluginitem match, the plugin is blocklisted.
Flags: blocking-firefox3? → blocking-firefox3+
hi, just wondering what the status and timeline for this feature. is there plans to target beta 3?
I thought plugin blocklisting works, since bug 388445 was verified; see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388445#c19
thats what i thought too. when i verified that bug, at least the notification part was working. If this is really fixed, can we get this bug properly commented and status changed?
TODO: * update blocklist schema wiki page (see comment #2) * create new table for pluginitems (kind of like blitems, but blpluginitems instead) * add logic in script to pull from plugin table * add logic in script to iterate over results and display plugin list in the XML ETA is Feb 7-ish.
Assignee: nobody → morgamic
Stephen/Tony -- plugins don't have GUIDs, so the name/regex matching in pluginItem entries is a fix for that. Since they followed a different install method for a pretty long time before we centered on the method used for today's extensions, they are a special case and aren't covered by the existing schema.
mwu -- so just description, filename and name, right?
One more quesiton -- if I have a <pluginItem> entry is it possible to define an application range for it, or is blocklisting of a plugin application-agnostic? For extensions it was possible to define this: <emItem id="item_4@domain"> <versionRange> <targetApplication> <versionRange minVersion="1.5" maxVersion="1.5.*"/> </targetApplication> </versionRange> </emItem> I'm guessing it's app-agnostic since they are pure binaries, but want to confirm.
Answers: #9: yes, just those #10: yes, app-agnostic Wanted to make sure. So we'll move forward with those assumptions. I updated the wiki to reflect this: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Extension_Blocklisting:Code_Design#Blocklist_syntax
Will add tests tomorrow -- Fred can you take a look at the schema and basics?
Attachment #308590 - Flags: review?(fwenzel)
Comment on attachment 308590 [details] [diff] [review] first stab at schema and blocklist.php patch In general, the patch looks good. But please use a MySQL index that spans the two columns we are querying here together, not each separately. (Also, if you want to remove a typo, line 240 says "errer" for "error").
Attachment #308590 - Flags: review?(fwenzel) → review-
K, fixed typo -- pretty sure that a multicolumn index won't make any difference, but will check...
Target Milestone: 3.2 → 3.4
Mike, ETA on getting this into production?
Just gotta write test so tomorrow looks peachy.
Tony - will work with you to stage it first as well.
thanks, i just need to know which plugin we plan to blocklist, version, and where to point my settings to. I'll have time to test this after we ship beta 5
Actually I need to know what we're blocklisting as far as plugins... so I can create a record for it?
To test, have to set SERVICE_URL and make sure you have TEST_DB_* setup correctly in your config (which you should already!!!) >:P
Comment on attachment 313592 [details] [diff] [review] v2, proper index, tests and test data, fixed typo Passes the test suite, looks good. Good job.
Attachment #313592 - Flags: review?(fwenzel) → review+
Checked in on trunk. Tony, let's meet on Friday to test a random plugin -- I'll ping ya.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [needs status update]
We need to add support for version _ranges_ in the app (Firefox can't parse them as with blitems/blapps). So reopening until version range checking is added. For now we can test with a specific version, though. Won't push until range support is added.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
ETA on this is Saturday.
S/Saturday/Monday/ -- started the patch but wasn't able to finish this weekend. Patch later this PM.
Patch on top of v2 which adds support for version ranges, tests included.
Attachment #314194 - Flags: review?(fwenzel)
Comment on attachment 314194 [details] [diff] [review] v3, adding support for version ranges WFM. New tests look good and pass as well. Not something to r- it for, but maybe you want to avoid the relative path in the require_once since it relies on the CWD and make it relative to dirname(__FILE__) instead?
Attachment #314194 - Flags: review?(fwenzel) → review+
Yeah, added dirname(__FILE__) thanks Fred. Checked in on r12064.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago → 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Verified FIXED; I tested this today using Tony's Litmus testcases, and they all passed (Java, QuickTime, etc.), with rc1.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Product: addons.mozilla.org → addons.mozilla.org Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.