safeb request format wrong for tables with no existing data

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 3.6a1

Status

()

P2
normal
RESOLVED FIXED
10 years ago
4 years ago

People

(Reporter: dcamp, Assigned: dcamp)

Tracking

({fixed1.9.0.11, fixed1.9.1})

Trunk
Firefox 3.6a1
fixed1.9.0.11, fixed1.9.1
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
blocking-firefox3.5 +
wanted1.9.0.x +
in-testsuite ?

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: [fixed1.9.1b4])

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Assignee)

Description

10 years ago
Created attachment 368105 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
[Checkin: Comment 6 & 7]

We're sending goog-malware-shavar;:mac, we should be sending goog-malware-shavar;mac.
Attachment #368105 - Flags: review?(tony)

Comment 1

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 368105 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
[Checkin: Comment 6 & 7]

Is it possible to have a test for this (or maybe it's already covered and a test needs to be updated)?
Attachment #368105 - Flags: review?(tony) → review+
This looks like a problem in the FF3.0.x code as well.
Flags: wanted1.9.0.x+
Flags: blocking1.9.0.9?
Flags: blocking1.9.0.8?
Flags: blocking-firefox3.5?
Flags: blocking-firefox3.5? → blocking-firefox3.5+
Priority: -- → P2
Assignee: nobody → dcamp
Whiteboard: [needs landing]
Flags: blocking1.9.0.8?
Not blocking 190, but we'll approve the patch if you want to get it in.
Flags: blocking1.9.0.10?
adding in-testsuite? per comment #1.
Flags: in-testsuite?
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
(Assignee)

Comment 5

10 years ago
We don't currently have a good automated framework for testing the request format.  While we should probably get one of those eventually, I wouldn't block this (really simple) change on it.

Updated

10 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed

Comment 6

10 years ago
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d2d78fec7ab2
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [needs landing] → [needs 1.9.1 landing]
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 3.6a1
Comment on attachment 368105 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
[Checkin: Comment 6 & 7]


http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/0f024e162d47
Attachment #368105 - Attachment description: fix → fix [Checkin: Comment 6 & 7]
Keywords: checkin-needed → fixed1.9.1
Whiteboard: [needs 1.9.1 landing] → [needs cvs/1.9.0 landing: needs approval] [fixed1.9.1b4]
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Attachment #368105 - Flags: approval1.9.0.10?
Comment on attachment 368105 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
[Checkin: Comment 6 & 7]

Yeah, ok. Approved for 1.9.0.10. a=ss
Attachment #368105 - Flags: approval1.9.0.10? → approval1.9.0.10+
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [needs cvs/1.9.0 landing: needs approval] [fixed1.9.1b4] → [needs cvs/1.9.0 landing] [fixed1.9.1b4]
Checking in toolkit/components/url-classifier/content/listmanager.js;
new revision: 1.32; previous revision: 1.31
Keywords: checkin-needed → fixed1.9.0.10
Whiteboard: [needs cvs/1.9.0 landing] [fixed1.9.1b4] → [fixed1.9.1b4]
Is the only way to verify this to sniff the connection over the wire? How do we trigger the safeb request on demand?
Tony: Can you verify that 1.9.0 nightly builds use the right format on your end?

Comment 12

10 years ago
Sorry for the delay.  Looking at the server logs, we aren't seeing enough traffic from the nightlies to say for sure.  Can you test on the client side by sniffing the http requests?
Component: Phishing Protection → Phishing Protection
Product: Firefox → Toolkit
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.