Closed
Bug 408697
Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
Certificate Exception dialog logs scary looking exception, even though nothing's wrong
Categories
(Core :: Security: PSM, defect)
Core
Security: PSM
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla1.9
People
(Reporter: sgautherie, Assigned: johnath)
References
Details
(Keywords: polish)
Attachments
(1 file)
1.42 KB,
patch
|
KaiE
:
review+
damons
:
approval1.9+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Moved from bug 408432 comment 11: {{{ Johnathan Nightingale 2007-12-17 08:55:45 PST > > the JS Error Message is Error: [Exception... "Component returned failure code: > > 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsIXMLHttpRequest.send]" nsresult: "0x80004005 > > (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)" location: "JS frame :: > > chrome://pippki/content/exceptionDialog.js :: checkCert :: line 151" data: no] > > Source File: chrome://pippki/content/exceptionDialog.js > > Line: 157 The exception is behaving as-designed (strange as that may seem). See here: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/security/manager/pki/resources/content/exceptionDialog.js#157 Though, if you found it really confusing, you might file a bug on improving the log message there, to say something about it being expected - or maybe logging it differently altogether? }}} Code (from bug 387181) is {{ 153 } catch (e) { 154 // We *expect* exceptions if there are problems with the certificate 155 // presented by the site. Log it, just in case, but we can proceed here, 156 // with appropriate sanity checks 157 Components.utils.reportError(e); 158 } finally { }}
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #0) > Code (from bug 387181) is Rather bug 387480.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•16 years ago
|
||
[Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5pre) Gecko/2008031801 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre] (nightly) (W2Ksp4) (Bug still there.)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•16 years ago
|
||
I don't think this blocks release, but it could be confusing, and it is very low-hanging fruit.
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Summary: "Error / Exception / NS_ERROR_FAILURE / nsIXMLHttpRequest.send / exceptionDialog.js :: checkCert :: line 151 and 157": make it clear that it's not a bug (to be reported). → Certificate Exception dialog logs scary looking exception, even though nothing's wrong
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 310453 [details] [diff] [review] More verbose log message Now, that looks a little too verbose to me, but I'd rather have too much than not enough. I wonder if we could/want to report this as a Message (or may be Warning) rather than an Error ? Moreover/Or, I wonder if that could/should be made "debug build only" ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4) > (From update of attachment 310453 [details] [diff] [review]) > Now, that looks a little too verbose to me, > but I'd rather have too much than not enough. > > I wonder if we could/want to report this as a Message (or may be Warning) > rather than an Error ? > Moreover/Or, I wonder if that could/should be made "debug build only" ? We don't want this for debug only, since the reason for logging it in the first place is that we think it's unlikely, but not impossible, that a "real" exception is being thrown here, and we don't want to lose all hope of catching that, if a user stumbles on to it. We could change it to a warning or info message instead of error, using nsIConsoleService - I'm not sure what Kai prefers here, but I'll leave it to him, since he has a broader knowledge of how PSM reports things to the console.
Comment 6•16 years ago
|
||
-'ing, but wanted1.9.0.x+. Would be a nice to have, request approval once patch completed. Still, won't block the release.
Flags: wanted1.9.0.x+
Flags: blocking1.9?
Flags: blocking1.9-
Comment 7•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 310453 [details] [diff] [review] More verbose log message r=kengert, although this message will never get localized...
Attachment #310453 -
Flags: review?(kengert) → review+
Reporter | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #310453 -
Flags: approval1.9?
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7) > (From update of attachment 310453 [details] [diff] [review]) > r=kengert, although this message will never get localized... For now, that may help to get it in for Gecko 1.9, wrt l10n. Should I file a followup bug for Gecko 2.0 ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (From update of attachment 310453 [details] [diff] [review] [details]) > > r=kengert, although this message will never get localized... > > For now, that may help to get it in for Gecko 1.9, wrt l10n. > Should I file a followup bug for Gecko 2.0 ? I agree - this is not worth the late-l10n hit, but I have no problem with it being localized in principle, unless we have a policy against localizing error messages. My advice would be to file a followup, cc me, and maybe even tag the status whiteboard as "[good first bug]". If some new volunteer doesn't get to it before I do, it should be a simple matter to add it to the right properties file, and retrieve it in js instead of hard coding.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > (From update of attachment 310453 [details] [diff] [review] [details] [details]) > > > r=kengert, although this message will never get localized... > > > > For now, that may help to get it in for Gecko 1.9, wrt l10n. > > Should I file a followup bug for Gecko 2.0 ? > > I agree - this is not worth the late-l10n hit, but I have no problem with it > being localized in principle, unless we have a policy against localizing error > messages. My advice would be to file a followup, cc me, and maybe even tag the > status whiteboard as "[good first bug]". If some new volunteer doesn't get to > it before I do, it should be a simple matter to add it to the right properties > file, and retrieve it in js instead of hard coding. > The followup bug might also want to address comment 4, where you talk about logging it at a different severity
Comment 11•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 310453 [details] [diff] [review] More verbose log message a1.9+=damons
Attachment #310453 -
Flags: approval1.9? → approval1.9+
Reporter | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•16 years ago
|
||
Checking in security/manager/pki/resources/content/exceptionDialog.js; /cvsroot/mozilla/security/manager/pki/resources/content/exceptionDialog.js,v <-- exceptionDialog.js new revision: 1.9; previous revision: 1.8 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•16 years ago
|
||
[Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9pre) Gecko/2008040715 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre] (SEA-WIN32-TBOX-trunk) (W2Ksp4) With <https://gmail.com/>, {{ Error: Attempted to connect to a site with a bad certificate in the add exception dialog. This results in a (mostly harmless) exception being thrown. Logged for information purposes only: [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsIXMLHttpRequest.send]" nsresult: "0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)" location: "JS frame :: chrome://pippki/content/exceptionDialog.js :: checkCert :: line 151" data: no] Source File: chrome://pippki/content/exceptionDialog.js Line: 159 }} Although, whereas the source code is nicely on 3 lines, the resulting "one endless line" console text is "difficult" to read. :-/ V.Fixed
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9
Updated•15 years ago
|
Flags: wanted1.9.0.x+
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•