Closed
Bug 410900
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
Applications pref pane is empty
Categories
(Firefox :: File Handling, defect)
Firefox
File Handling
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
Firefox 3 beta3
People
(Reporter: reed, Assigned: rflint)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
1.46 KB,
patch
|
myk
:
review+
mtschrep
:
approval1.9+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
4.42 KB,
patch
|
myk
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Some check-in today caused the applications pref pane to become completely empty.
Probably bug 408957, which also caused bug 410894.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9b3pre) Gecko/2008010504 Minefield/3.0b3pre
Flags: blocking-firefox3?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
Attachment #295483 -
Flags: review?(myk)
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
Even if JS2/ES4 makes the switch body-block scope let declarations, that's not what this code (or the downloads.js code) wants -- this code wants implicit blocks around switch-case statement lists. But due to fall-through without break, these cannot be scoped without analyzing control flow.
More sane but still questionable would be to scope all let decls in all case code to the switch's body block, which is what JS1.7 did.
But there's always explicit block containing let decls, or let blocks if putting the decls in the head (with the ability to use outer synonyms in initializers) is important. It's up to myk, but my 2 cents favor keeping let but using explicit let blocks.
/be
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Attachment #295483 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #295570 -
Flags: review?(myk)
Attachment #295483 -
Flags: review?(myk)
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 295570 [details] [diff] [review]
use explicit/let blocks
I agree with Brendan; this is the right fix. r=myk
Attachment #295570 -
Flags: review?(myk) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Attachment #295570 -
Flags: approval1.9?
Updated•17 years ago
|
Attachment #295570 -
Flags: approval1.9? → approval1.9+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
Attachment #295748 -
Flags: review?(myk)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
mozilla/browser/components/preferences/applications.js 1.31
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite?
Flags: in-litmus-
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 295748 [details] [diff] [review]
Simple alive test
Thanks for adding a test for this!
>diff --git a/browser/components/preferences/Makefile.in b/browser/components/preferences/Makefile.in
>+ifdef MOZ_MOCHITEST
>+DIRS += tests
>+endif
Nit: it seems like other browser chrome mochitests have been using "test" singular as their directory name, so perhaps this should do the same. On the other hand, lots of other tests are using the plural version, so it probably doesn't matter.
>diff --git a/browser/components/preferences/tests/Makefile.in b/browser/components/preferences/tests/Makefile.in
>+libs:: $(_BROWSER_FILES)
>+ $(INSTALL) $(foreach f,$^,"$f") $(DEPTH)/_tests/testing/mochitest/$(relativesrcdir)
Despite the apparent duplication, this should be:
+ $(INSTALL) $(foreach f,$^,"$f") $(DEPTH)/_tests/testing/mochitest/browser/$(relativesrcdir)
Which puts the tests in:
_tests/testing/mochitest/browser/browser/components/preferences
So that you can run them from the command line via:
perl runtests.pl --browser-chrome --test-path=browser/components/preferences
r=myk with this change
>diff --git a/browser/components/preferences/tests/browser_bug410900.js b/browser/components/preferences/tests/browser_bug410900.js
>+ var doc = win && win.document;
Why isn't this just "var doc = win.document"?
Updated•17 years ago
|
Attachment #295748 -
Flags: review?(myk) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #8)
> >+ var doc = win && win.document;
>
> Why isn't this just "var doc = win.document"?
>
Just a leftover from a previous iteration - I removed this and corrected the nsinstall path on checkin.
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
| Reporter | ||
Comment 10•17 years ago
|
||
I disabled the last part of this test due to a failure that appeared after bug 397815 landed.
chrome://mochikit/content/browser/browser/components/preferences/tests/browser_bug410900.js
PASS - Pref window opened
PASS - Specified pane was opened
PASS - handlersView is present
FAIL - App handler list populated - chrome://mochikit/content/browser/browser/components/preferences/tests/browser_bug410900.js
I downloaded an hourly to check this, and the applications pane looked fine, so I'm guessing it's a problem with the test itself?
Comment 11•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #10)
> I disabled the last part of this test due to a failure that appeared after bug
> 397815 landed.
I don't see any way that that patch could have affected this test. It might have just been a fluke.
Comment 12•17 years ago
|
||
(A fluke that that test failed at the same time that that patch was checked in, I mean. The test itself could have failed for a number of reasons.)
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-firefox3? → blocking-firefox3+
Comment 13•17 years ago
|
||
verified fixed using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9b3) Gecko/2008020514 Firefox/3.0b3 ID:2008020514
- > Verified fixed
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 14•17 years ago
|
||
I have this problem in Firefox 3 Beta 5 on Xubuntu, with settings imported from my previous installation of Firefox 2 on LinuxMint 4. It is annoying.
Comment 15•17 years ago
|
||
The test failed again
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | chrome://mochikit/content/browser/browser/components/preferences/tests/browser_bug410900.js | handlersView is present
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | chrome://mochikit/content/browser/browser/components/preferences/tests/browser_bug410900.js | App handler list populated
Using timeout to see if window is opened and the document for it is loaded is
error prone. Would be better if load event could be used.
Comment 16•17 years ago
|
||
I still have the same problem, in FireFox 3.0 (rv.1.9. What's that?) on Xubuntu.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 17•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #16)
> I still have the same problem, in FireFox 3.0 (rv.1.9. What's that?) on
> Xubuntu.
>
This bug has to do with with a short-lived change to JavaScript engine that caused this pane to fail to load due to syntax errors. If you're having issues with it in any build beyond beta 3 and are using a build from a package manager, you should file a bug in your distribution's bug tracker. Otherwise file a new one here.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•