The default bug view has changed. See this FAQ.

Properly distinguish soft and hard blocked items in the update pings

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla2.0b12

Status

()

Toolkit
Add-ons Manager
RESOLVED FIXED
6 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: mossop, Assigned: mossop)

Tracking

Trunk
mozilla2.0b12
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite +
in-litmus -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(status1.9.2 .17-fixed, status1.9.1 .19-fixed)

Details

(Whiteboard: [has patch])

Attachments

(2 attachments)

(Assignee)

Description

6 years ago
Currently in Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 we only include the "blocklisted" state if an item is hardblocked.
In Firefox 4.0 we include the "blocklisted" state if an item is soft or hard blocked.

This causes confusing data and for the branches makes it impossible to verify that blocklist changes are having any effect. We should split it and send "blocklisted" for hard blocks only and "softblocked" for soft blocked items.
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Assignee: nobody → dtownsend
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Whiteboard: [has patch][waiting on try]
(Assignee)

Comment 1

6 years ago
Created attachment 511242 [details] [diff] [review]
patch rev 1

Just for Firefox 4 for now this makes the changes. Turns out there were no tests for this so I added those. I think it's important to take this and bring us back into parity with 3.6 for stats.
Attachment #511242 - Flags: review?(bmcbride)
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Whiteboard: [has patch][waiting on try] → [has patch][needs review Unfocused]
Comment on attachment 511242 [details] [diff] [review]
patch rev 1

Makes sense.
Attachment #511242 - Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Attachment #511242 - Flags: review+
Attachment #511242 - Flags: approval2.0?
(Assignee)

Comment 3

6 years ago
For drivers, this is really safe code that fixes a regression from 3.6 that generates us confusing stats when we try to evaluate the pickup rate of the blocklist.
Attachment #511242 - Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
(Assignee)

Comment 4

6 years ago
Landed: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/53d06f07a4d2
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Flags: in-litmus-
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b12
Dave, what's the best way to verify this fix at least for the softblocked items? In which query will the softblocked items be contained in?
Whiteboard: [has patch][needs review Unfocused] → [has patch]
(Assignee)

Comment 6

6 years ago
(In reply to comment #5)
> Dave, what's the best way to verify this fix at least for the softblocked
> items? In which query will the softblocked items be contained in?

It shows up in the update ping to AMO or the %ITEM_STATUS% part of a custom updateURL
(Assignee)

Comment 7

6 years ago
Created attachment 517484 [details] [diff] [review]
branch patch

This adds the softblocked status to the 1.9.2 branch and adds the same tests.
Attachment #517484 - Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla)
Attachment #517484 - Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 8

6 years ago
Comment on attachment 517484 [details] [diff] [review]
branch patch

I'd like approval to land this on the branches to ensure that we get good feedback from changes to the blocklist. It is a pretty low risk patch and adds more tests than we had previously for this status reporting.
Attachment #517484 - Flags: approval1.9.2.16?
Attachment #517484 - Flags: approval1.9.1.18?
(In reply to comment #3)
> For drivers, this is really safe code that fixes a regression from 3.6 that

If it's a regression from 3.6 why do we need this patch in 3.6? Or if you meant a regression introduced _in_ 3.6 it's still not clear why you want this patch in 3.5.
(Assignee)

Comment 10

6 years ago
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > For drivers, this is really safe code that fixes a regression from 3.6 that
> 
> If it's a regression from 3.6 why do we need this patch in 3.6? Or if you meant
> a regression introduced _in_ 3.6 it's still not clear why you want this patch
> in 3.5.

Neither, that comment was for the 2.0 drivers where we changed the behaviour.

Firefox 3.6 and 3.5 tell AMO when they know an add-on that a user has installed is hard blocked but not when it is soft blocked (which 4.0 does do now). We have been using the stats from these pings in the past to verify the rollout of the blocklist updates and without the soft blocked information we can't verify that kind of block is rolling out as we expect.
Comment on attachment 517484 [details] [diff] [review]
branch patch

Approved for 1.9.2.16 and 1.9.1.18, a=dveditz for release-drivers
Attachment #517484 - Flags: approval1.9.2.16?
Attachment #517484 - Flags: approval1.9.2.16+
Attachment #517484 - Flags: approval1.9.1.18?
Attachment #517484 - Flags: approval1.9.1.18+
(Assignee)

Comment 12

6 years ago
Landed:

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/fabeec97235e
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/72a72241e47c
status1.9.1: --- → .19-fixed
status1.9.2: --- → .17-fixed
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.