429697 - Change "Why was this site blocked" to use more detailed report page

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Toolkit :: Safe Browsing, defect)

Description

[Johnathan Nightingale [:johnath]]

Google has a more detailed page for their malware blocking list, which satisfies a number of requests from people for extra information about a particular site's problems.  The URL format is:

http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=www.google.com&client=firefox&hl=en-US

I'm not actually sure this blocks release, but it is a very nice to have, since we've already been hearing a lot of requests for this level of detail.  I'd like to see more linkage to/from stopbadware.org since I think they do good work that we would like to draw attention to.  Given that we've blocked our users from seeing the page, though, our first obligation is to answer their questions about why it happened, in my opinion.

Whether or not it blocks, I'll attach a patch shortly, since it is low risk (change a URL and a small bit of js) and high reward (better information for our users).

Comment 1

[Johnathan Nightingale [:johnath]]

Attachment: Change url, and make consistent use of nsIURLFormatter

Switch to the more detailed URL.  Google says this version will also get some localization attention.  

This patch also changes the code to use nsIURLFormatter instead of build-time variables, since locale is likely to change after compile.

Comment 2

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

Comment on attachment 316482 [details] [diff] [review]
Change url, and make consistent use of nsIURLFormatter

Could test this by firing events on the buttons and checking that we end up at the correct locations (or at least add a litmus test to make sure this functionality doesn't break before release).

Comment 3

[Johnathan Nightingale [:johnath]]

Comment on attachment 316482 [details] [diff] [review]
Change url, and make consistent use of nsIURLFormatter

Requesting approval to land this blocker.  Virtually no code risk, default pref change on something people were unlikely to change anyhow, and it gives us good error reporting.

Comment 4

[Johnathan Nightingale [:johnath]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (From update of attachment 316482 [details] [diff] [review])
> Requesting approval to land this blocker.  Virtually no code risk, default pref
> change on something people were unlikely to change anyhow, and it gives us good
> error reporting.

And by error reporting, I mean blocked site reporting, clearly...

Setting in-litmus? because this is a natural fit for litmus testing ("Does the button work?  Does it go to the place that tells you things?  Does that page work?").

Comment 5

[Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]]

Comment on attachment 316482 [details] [diff] [review]
Change url, and make consistent use of nsIURLFormatter

a1.9=beltzner

Comment 6

[Johnathan Nightingale [:johnath]]

Checking in browser/base/content/browser.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/base/content/browser.js,v  <--  browser.js
new revision: 1.1028; previous revision: 1.1027
done
Checking in browser/app/profile/firefox.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/app/profile/firefox.js,v  <--  firefox.js
new revision: 1.324; previous revision: 1.323
done

Comment 7

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=5293 added to Litmus.