Closed
Bug 605499
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Add-ons manager doesn't display EULA for available add-ons that have one
Categories
(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, defect)
Toolkit
Add-ons Manager
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla2.0b7
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
blocking2.0 | --- | beta7+ |
People
(Reporter: mossop, Assigned: mossop)
Details
(Whiteboard: [strings])
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
3.12 KB,
patch
|
Unfocused
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
11.10 KB,
patch
|
Unfocused
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
After searching AMO for add-ons if the user tries to install one with an EULA then we should display it for them to accept. The XUL for the UI to do this still exists but a couple of strings got removed along the way so we'd need to add these back a.s.a.p. There is probably also sadly a small API change (additive only) to support this.
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
blocking2.0: --- → betaN+
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → dtownsend
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Going to work on an automated test for this but I think we should try to get this reviewed and landed on trunk and relbranch a.s.a.p. Turns out no API change was necessary, just needed to resurrect some strings from the 1.9.2 branch. I have not renamed the strings as they are exactly the same string in exactly the same context.
Attachment #484381 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
Ignore the logging in the last patch
Attachment #484381 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #484382 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Attachment #484381 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #484382 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Landed: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/550280c5f30b Relbranch: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/22a3c0fcb8f1
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite?
Flags: in-litmus-
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
eulaHeader=%S requires that you accept the following End User License Agreement before installation can proceed: What is %S? The add-on's name you're installing? Please add l10n comments ;-)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
Pushed a quick l10n note http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/abd46d6b3534 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/051b5bc46443
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
Simple testcase, installs an extension from the results that requires accepting the EULA.
Attachment #484811 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 484811 [details] [diff] [review] testcase rev 1 This isn't passing in conjunction with other tests right now
Attachment #484811 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #484811 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
Added some errors and cleanups at the end of every test when there are unexpected installs available and made the tests that violate this clean themselves up. This will help some of our intermittent failures not blow up the following tests quite so much.
Attachment #485059 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Comment 10•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 485059 [details] [diff] [review] testcase rev 2 > function end_test() { > Services.prefs.clearUserPref("extensions.update.url"); > >- finish(); >+ // Test generates a lot of available installs so just cancel them all >+ AddonManager.getAllInstalls(function(aInstalls) { >+ aInstalls.forEach(function(aInstall) { >+ aInstall.cancel(); >+ }); >+ >+ finish(); >+ }); > } Pity we can't have have async cleanup functions yet. >+// Tests tha installs and undoing installs show up correctly Typo.
Attachment #485059 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
Landed the test: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/28675757affa
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
Comment 12•14 years ago
|
||
Verified fixed with Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101027 Firefox/4.0b8pre and the "Buzz It!" extension. Btw. the monospace font we are using in this dialog is somewhat really ugly.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b7
Comment 13•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #12) > Btw. the monospace font we are using in this dialog is somewhat really ugly. Going to fix that in bug 601022.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•