Closed Bug 507804 Opened 16 years ago Closed 15 years ago

nsMsgComposeSecure.cpp: 3 strings to localize

Categories

(MailNews Core :: Security: S/MIME, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
Thunderbird 3.3a1

People

(Reporter: sgautherie, Assigned: ewong)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: l12y, Whiteboard: [good first bug])

Attachments

(1 file, 3 obsolete files)

{ // XXX These strings should go in properties file XXX // #define MIME_MULTIPART_SIGNED_BLURB "This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format." #define MIME_SMIME_ENCRYPTED_CONTENT_DESCRIPTION "S/MIME Encrypted Message" #define MIME_SMIME_SIGNATURE_CONTENT_DESCRIPTION "S/MIME Cryptographic Signature" }
Flags: wanted-thunderbird3?
Whiteboard: [good first bug]
Assignee: nobody → ewong
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #466522 - Flags: review?(myk)
Comment on attachment 466522 [details] [diff] [review] Localize 3 strings in nsMsgComposeSecure Hmm, I don't believe I'm a peer for this module, and thus I'm unable to review changes to it. Did you mean to ask someone else for review perhaps?
Attachment #466522 - Flags: review?(myk) → review?
(In reply to comment #2) > Comment on attachment 466522 [details] [diff] [review] > Localize 3 strings in nsMsgComposeSecure > > Hmm, I don't believe I'm a peer for this module, and thus I'm unable to review > changes to it. Did you mean to ask someone else for review perhaps? Sorry. I was reading https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mailnews_and_Mail_code_review_requirements, and misunderstood it as I saw your name next to "mailnews/extensions" which is were my edits were. Then I noticed the submodule "Feeds".
Attachment #466522 - Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Attachment #466522 - Flags: review?(bienvenu)
Attachment #466522 - Flags: review?
Comment on attachment 466522 [details] [diff] [review] Localize 3 strings in nsMsgComposeSecure Instead of (char *)crypto_multipart_blurb.get()) please use const_cast<char*>(crypto_multipart_blurb.get()) + nsCOMPtr<nsIStringBundleService> bundleSvc = + do_GetService(NS_STRINGBUNDLE_CONTRACTID); add if (!bundleSvc) return NS_ERROR_FAILURE; (in all 3 places) + nsCOMPtr<nsIStringBundle> sMIMEBundle; + nsXPIDLString mime_smime_enc_content_desc; + + bundleSvc->CreateBundle(SMIME_STRBUNDLE_URL, getter_AddRefs(sMIMEBundle)); add if (!sMIMEBundle) return NS_ERROR_FAILURE; (in all 3 places) + + sMIMEBundle->GetStringFromName(NS_LITERAL_STRING("mime_smimeEncryptedContentDesc").get(), + getter_Copies(mime_smime_enc_content_desc));
Attachment #466522 - Flags: review?(bienvenu) → review?(kaie)
Or, add &rv to the end of the do_GetService call and do an ENSURE_SUCCESS(rv, rv); And if you go the return NS_ERROR_FAILURE route, please put the return on its own line.
Comment on attachment 466522 [details] [diff] [review] Localize 3 strings in nsMsgComposeSecure minusing based on kaie's previous comments.
Attachment #466522 - Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Attachment #466522 - Flags: superreview-
Attachment #466522 - Flags: review?(kaie)
Attachment #466522 - Flags: review-
(In reply to comment #5) > Or, add &rv to the end of the do_GetService call and do an ENSURE_SUCCESS(rv, > rv); > > And if you go the return NS_ERROR_FAILURE route, please put the return on its > own line. Ok. I've already finished the patch based on kaie's comments. I'll also add the rv to the end of the do_GetService call.
Attachment #466522 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #467304 - Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Attachment #467304 - Flags: review?(bienvenu)
Attachment #467304 - Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Attachment #467304 - Flags: review?(bienvenu)
Attachment #467304 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #467339 - Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Attachment #467339 - Flags: review?(bienvenu)
Comment on attachment 467339 [details] [diff] [review] nsMsgComposeSecure.cpp: 3 strings to localize (v2) >+ nsCOMPtr<nsIStringBundleService> bundleSvc = >+ do_GetService(NS_STRINGBUNDLE_CONTRACTID, &rv); >+ NS_ENSURE_SUCCESS(rv, rv); >+ >+ nsCOMPtr<nsIStringBundle> sMIMEBundle; >+ nsXPIDLString mime_smime_enc_content_desc; >+ >+ if (!bundleSvc) >+ return NS_ERROR_FAILURE; Edmund, you don't need this check any more, please remove the last 2 lines, it's now redundant. The effect of NS_ENSURE_SUCCESS(rv, rv) is: if (NS_FAILED(rv)) return rv; (do_GetService will give you a failure in "rv" if it can't give you the service) >+ if (!bundleSvc) >+ return NS_ERROR_FAILURE; remove > "Content-Description: %s" CRLF > CRLF, > mMultipartSignedBoundary, >- MIME_SMIME_SIGNATURE_CONTENT_DESCRIPTION); >+ NS_ConvertUTF16toUTF8(mime_smime_sig_content_desc)); That's risky, for two reasons: - NS_ConvertUTF16toUTF8(mime_smime_sig_content_desc) is a temporary object, and the object lifetime may be ambigous to the compiler. It's better to make this a named variable prior to the printf call. - because the argument list for printf is "not typed", the compiler has no idea how to convert to what you want. I think you should do it like this: NS_ConvertUTF16toUTF8 sig_content_desc_utf8(mime_smime_sig_content_desc); ...printf...( .... mMultipartSignedBoundary, sig_content_desc_utf8.get()); >+ if (!bundleSvc) >+ return NS_ERROR_FAILURE; remove >+ (crypto_multipart_blurb.IsEmpty() ? "" : NS_ConvertUTF16toUTF8(crypto_multipart_blurb).get()), Again, please use the approach I described above.
Attachment #467339 - Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Attachment #467339 - Flags: review?(bienvenu)
Attachment #467339 - Flags: review-
thx, Kaie. And Edmund, please request review from Kaie with your next patch, and sr from me (though this patch doesn't really need sr based on our new review requirements, so Kaie's r= should be sufficient).
Attachment #467339 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #467677 - Flags: review?
Attachment #467677 - Flags: review? → review?(kaie)
Comment on attachment 467677 [details] [diff] [review] nsMsgComposeSecure.cpp: 3 strings to localize (v3) r=kaie Thanks Edmund!
Attachment #467677 - Flags: review?(kaie) → review+
Keywords: checkin-needed
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Flags: wanted-thunderbird3?
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 3.2a1
Flags: in-testsuite-
Just wondering: is it OK to say the message is signed digitally instead of cryptographically?
(In reply to comment #15) > Just wondering: is it OK to say the message is signed digitally instead of > cryptographically? for signing :: yes.
David, what will happen if people actually translate these strings, and we end up with non-ascii text in the ascii email headers? Couldn't that cause problems? Sorry for not thinking about this earlier.
Depends on: 591078
(In reply to comment #17) > David, what will happen if people actually translate these strings, and we end > up with non-ascii text in the ascii email headers? Couldn't that cause > problems? We convert them to utf8 (two of these are message header values, the other goes into the message body, right?). I think the message send code should figure out the right encoding, unless the s/mime code inserts itself into the process too late. We should definitely try this and see that we're not generating invalid headers or message body.
Depends on: 723086
Depends on: 800877
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: