435095 - input type="file" should supply full file path

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 405630

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Adam Fisk]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0

The resolution of bug 81174 changed file input behavior to only supply the file name and not the path in the value of the file input control.  This was changed due to "security considerations", but the bug never specifies what those security considerations are.

This ends up breaking many sites, including eBay and LittleShoot.  All other major browsers supply the full path.  For such a major change, either the supposed security considerations should be properly articulated, or the change should be rolled back.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Include <input type="file" id="fileInputTest" onchange="myFunction()"/> element
2. In myFunction, call alert(document.getElementById("fileInputTest").value)
Actual Results:  
You receive an alert with just the file name, not the path.

Expected Results:  
Shown the full path to the file.

There are clearly some politics surrounding this one, but it's breaking many sites now with nebulous reasoning.  References to "security considerations" should not be enough to send everyone scrambling to make changes like this.  FireFox should hold itself to a higher standard.

Comment 2

[Adam Fisk]

That's one way to "solve" it -- just be satisfied no one has given a good justification for this change.  Well done.

Comment 3

[Adam Fisk]

If you don't personally understand the security considerations involved, don't close the bug.

Comment 4

[Robert Longson [:longsonr]]

Bugzilla is not a discussion forum. I think you will find this ship has sailed.

You got the same response in bug 405630 too.

If you don't understand not to keep raising duplicate bugs then don't use bugzilla.

Comment 6

[Adam Fisk]

Just to clarify, I had not received any response to bug 405630 when I opened this.  Hence my opening it.  Thanks for taking the time to respond on bug 405630, Jesse.

Comment 7

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

That you get no response doesn't mean that you can reopen the bug or create a new bug report which generates more work for people working here.

Comment 8

[Adam Fisk]

Well, the intention is to help FireFox, Matthias. It's an open source project, and I've run several significant ones.  This bug is still highly questionable, and it helps FireFox to clarify it.  

Oh, and I'm "working here" just as much as you are.  It creates more work for me too pal.

Comment 9

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

Bugzilla is not for getting help or get your questions answered.
You can ask something in open bugs but don't expect answers. You didn't got an answer and you created a new bug to force an answer and that is unfriendly and without respect for the people here and it's against the rules.
If you need answers use the newsgroups, Forums or IRC but not bugzilla (not in that way you used)

Comment 10

[Adam Fisk]

I'm not asking for help, and I'm not asking a question.  I'm pointing out that a major change was made to the software with nebulous reasoning.  I still think the reasoning is too nebulous for a change of this magnitude.

It's not unfriendly, it's seeking to make the best software possible.  That's what open source software and collaboration is all about, right?  It's as friendly as you get.  This change breaks many web sites, and it should have sound reasoning behind it.  

Good software *relies upon disagreement*.  If dissent is discouraged, FireFox, along with the the millions of people using it, is the ultimate loser.