Closed Bug 604807 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Crash [@ nsHTMLSelectElement::GetOptionIndex] with QI to nsISelectElement


(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)

Not set



Tracking Status
blocking2.0 --- betaN+
blocking1.9.2 --- .13+
status1.9.2 --- .13-fixed
blocking1.9.1 --- .16+
status1.9.1 --- .16-fixed


(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: Ms2ger)



(Keywords: crash, testcase)

Crash Data


(2 files, 1 obsolete file)

      No description provided.
This is crap left over from XBL form controls.  We should make this interface noscript as a quick fix, imo.
blocking1.9.1: --- → ?
blocking1.9.2: --- → ?
blocking2.0: --- → ?
I have patches to remove nsISelectElement altogether, but I guess that won't fly for 2.0.
Probably not.  Want to do a patch per comment 1?  ;)
We have a systematic problem we need to fix that will resolve this issue:  bug 605271.  It's a blocker, so minusing this one.
blocking2.0: ? → -
It doesn't seem to crash the 1.9.2 branch, do we still want to make the interface [noscript] anyway just in case? Any others in the same family we should do the same to?
We should make this noscript on branch, yes.  imo.
blocking1.9.1: ? → .15+
blocking1.9.2: ? → .12+
Assignee: nobody → khuey
bug 605271 is a lot more than making the iface [noscript]. Is it necessary (and if so, is it a safe change for the branch?) or is there a quick IDL fix along the lines of comment 1?
Whiteboard: [fixed by 605271 on trunk]
Attached patch Patch v1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Assignee: khuey → Ms2ger
Attachment #488440 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 488440 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1

Attachment #488440 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Attachment #488440 - Flags: approval2.0?
Do we want/need to take that on 2.0?
Attachment #488440 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #488440 - Flags: approval2.0?
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [fixed by 605271 on trunk] → [fixed by 605271 on trunk][c-n:1.9.1,1.9.2]
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval1.9.2.13?
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval1.9.1.16?
Comment on attachment 488570 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for checkin

Four addons tried to fool my search by doing this:
  const nsISelectElement = Components.interfaces.nsIDOMHTMLSelectElement;

(and then using nsISelectElement) but none use the real nsISelectElement so we look OK going this route.

Approved for and, a=dveditz for release-drivers
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval1.9.2.13?
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval1.9.2.13+
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval1.9.1.16?
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval1.9.1.16+
Leaving open for trunk until bug 605271 has landed (or this patch is landed in the interim?). I believe checkin-needed referred only to the branches so I'm removing that keyword, but if we want this interim patch meanwhile it could be re-added.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [fixed by 605271 on trunk][c-n:1.9.1,1.9.2] → [will be fixed by 605271 on trunk]
We should just land this patch on trunk.  Bug 605271 isn't going to make it.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [will be fixed by 605271 on trunk]
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval2.0?
This should be blocking since 605271 isn't anymore.
blocking2.0: - → ?
Jonas, Johnny, this should block, isn't it?
Keywords: checkin-needed
Attachment #488570 - Flags: approval2.0?
Keywords: checkin-needed
Depends on: 619996
Closed: 14 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Keywords: checkin-needed
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b9
As per today's meeting, beta 9 will be a time-based release. Marking these all betaN+. Please move it back to beta9+ if  you believe it MUST be in the next beta (ie: trunk is in an unshippable state without this)
blocking2.0: beta9+ → betaN+
No longer depends on: 605271, 619996
Keywords: crash, testcase
Keywords: crash, testcase
Readding everything that got stripped ...
Depends on: 605271, 619996
Crash Signature: [@ nsHTMLSelectElement::GetOptionIndex]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.