Closed Bug 595092 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Attempting to access the extensions datasource too early in startup will fail and leave the datasource inaccessible for the entire session

Categories

(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, defect)

1.9.2 Branch
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
status2.0 --- unaffected
blocking1.9.2 --- -
status1.9.2 --- .11-fixed

People

(Reporter: mossop, Assigned: mossop)

Details

(Whiteboard: [qa-examined-192][qa-needs-str])

Attachments

(1 file)

If _ensureDS is called before ProfD is available we end up defining _ds but it has no datasource loaded in it so all attempts to use it will throw exceptions. We can protect against this quite easily and we should as if extensions do this it currently leaves the extension manager, blocklist service and app updates broken.
Assignee: nobody → dtownsend
blocking1.9.2: --- → ?
Attached patch patch rev 1Splinter Review
This keeps the add-ons manager in a sane state if the datasource is accessed before ProfD is available. Accessing the datasource at that point will still throw but we no longer cache the bad datasource we get and allow it to be recreated at a future time. The test was a bit tricky, putting it into the same directory as the others would make it impossible to test as a profile directory is always defined there, and I had to define ProfDS since that is always available by the time the extension manager can be accessed.
Attachment #474200 - Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla)
Attachment #474200 - Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla) → review+
Comment on attachment 474200 [details] [diff] [review] patch rev 1 This patch is a protective measure to help us be resilient in the face of extensions doing weird things. In introduces no behavioral change for the normal case and includes an automated test to verify that it fixes the breakage that we'd normally see here.
Attachment #474200 - Flags: approval1.9.2.10?
Is a backport to 1.9.1 needed, possible, or even doable before its EOL?
The patch probably applies as-is, not sure how worth it it is at this point though.
There's some complaining about the Personas Plus 1.6 mess under Firefox 3.5.x in bug 590978 (which was just set to blocking both 1.9.2 and 1.9.1), so if this is doable on both branches without too much trouble then it's probably worth it.
(In reply to comment #5) > There's some complaining about the Personas Plus 1.6 mess under Firefox 3.5.x > in bug 590978 (which was just set to blocking both 1.9.2 and 1.9.1), so if this > is doable on both branches without too much trouble then it's probably worth > it. The personas extension doesn't override the extension manager in 3.5 so in that particular case 3.5 is unaffected.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > There's some complaining about the Personas Plus 1.6 mess under Firefox 3.5.x > > in bug 590978 (which was just set to blocking both 1.9.2 and 1.9.1), so if this > > is doable on both branches without too much trouble then it's probably worth > > it. > > The personas extension doesn't override the extension manager in 3.5 so in that > particular case 3.5 is unaffected. Then I guess the blocking1.9.1.13+ in bug 590978 is unwarranted, which was why I asked here. If this patch won't hurt but might help, and requires no extra effort to backport, then I'd suggest landing it there just in case. If there's a noteworthy risk, then nevermind.
blocking1.9.2: ? → -
Comment on attachment 474200 [details] [diff] [review] patch rev 1 Approved for 1.9.2.11, a=dveditz for release-drivers
Attachment #474200 - Flags: approval1.9.2.11? → approval1.9.2.11+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Flags: in-litmus-
Resolution: --- → FIXED
How do we test this fix in 1.9.2? Is there a way to reliably trigger the original issue?
Whiteboard: [qa-examined-192] [qa-needs-str]
(In reply to comment #10) > How do we test this fix in 1.9.2? Is there a way to reliably trigger the > original issue? Dave, any chance to get it verified manually?
Whiteboard: [qa-examined-192] [qa-needs-str] → [qa-examined-192][qa-needs-str]
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > How do we test this fix in 1.9.2? Is there a way to reliably trigger the > > original issue? > > Dave, any chance to get it verified manually? The most straightforward way would probably be to try to reproduce bug 590608
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: