518607 - Move the Troubleshooting Information page into toolkit so other apps like Thunderbird and SeaMonkey can use it.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Curtis Bartley [:cbartley]]

The Troubleshooting Information page (about:support) currently lives in browser, but we should move it into toolkit so other apps like Thunderbird and SeaMonkey can use it.

Comment 1

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: mv v.1

This is enough to get it working in SeaMonkey (though they'll probably want to add a support site pref, to get rid of the cruel "support web site" link going to about:blank); I expect Thunderbird will need a bit more work, but we'll see.

I was going to leave behind a comment explaining that there wasn't any need to get the Application object since there's already a global one, but then I noticed that populateExtensionsSection() and getModifiedPrefs() already use the global, so I figured everyone but me already knew that anyway.

And yeah, the inline JS and CSS need to come out, but I'll do them in bug 518989 once it's moved.

Comment 2

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

Comment on attachment 428002 [details] [diff] [review]
mv v.1

We should probably at least add a comment at the top of aboutSupport.xhtml that explains what it depends on (branding package, app.support.baseURL existing, FUEL, more?). Perhaps ideally we should also loosen those dependencies...

Comment 3

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

The FUEL-alike one is the easiest to drop (and the one Camino is least likely to meet) - we're using it for prefs, but we're also using a gPrefService, and both of those could probably use Services instead if they aren't going to do things directly, and for the app name and version xre/app-info isn't all *that* hard to use.

But, I'm sort of stuck, not wanting to bit-rot myself for bug 518989, which seems to have gathered a strange and unlikely load of controversy. Should I four-step it, move it, move the script out, deal with the script and what that leaves for a dependency list, and then worry about the CSS after that?

Comment 4

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

(In reply to comment #3)
> Should I four-step it, move it, move the script out, deal with the script and
> what that leaves for a dependency list, and then worry about the CSS after that?

Seems reasonable.

Comment 5

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/744994e4f7cf