Closed Bug 645002 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location

Categories

(Mozilla QA Graveyard :: Mozmill Crowd Extension, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: Aleksej, Assigned: aaronmt)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [testday-110325])

Attachments

(1 file, 4 obsolete files)

Tests in Mozmill Crowd 0.1.2 fail silently if the specified storage directory is on a volume with noexec (like /tmp is supposed to be, according to some — although not according to Debian).
Whiteboard: [testday-110325]
That applies to any platform, if the storage folder is not writable. Should be easy to fix for the next release. We will triage that later.
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: x86_64 → All
Summary: No error message if the storage directory is noexec → Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location
noexec means files in that directory cannot be executed (the "x" permission on files is ignored)
Summary: Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location → Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location, nor one with noexec.
Summary: Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location, nor one with noexec. → Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location, nor one mounted with noexec.
We should include this bug in v0.2. Has someone interests to work on it? It shouldn't be that hard to get fixed.
Blocks: 623204
Assignee: nobody → aaron.train
Attached patch Writable check (obsolete) — Splinter Review
+ Checks if the specified storage location is writable or not
Attachment #529108 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Comment on attachment 529108 [details] [diff] [review] Writable check >+ window.alert(this._stringBundle.getString("storage.path_isNotWritable")); We should be consistent with the naming of properties. For now we are using underscores to separate the words from each other. We should probably revise that but for now please don't use camel case. "path_not_writable" would be fine. >+storage.path_isNotWritable=The specified folder must have writable permissions. Please select a different folder. "writable" is not a common word I have seen in failure messages so far. Can you use "read-only" instead?
Attachment #529108 - Flags: review?(hskupin) → review-
Attached patch Writable check - v2 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
+ Reworded property and property definition based on review comment above
Attachment #529108 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #529465 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
(In reply to comment #6) > The specified folder can not be read-only. Please select a different folder. I think it should be “is” instead of “can not be”. It will be clear that it should not be read-only. Otherwise it sounds like the problem is that the folder actually specified can not be made read-only.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > The specified folder can not be read-only. Please select a different folder. > > I think it should be “is” instead of “can not be”. It will be clear that it > should not be read-only. Otherwise it sounds like the problem is that the > folder actually specified can not be made read-only. If that we're the case, 'is' does not reference the point of issue and and an act of change. By using 'can not' or 'must not', it implies an action of change.
A Pivotal Tracker story has been created for this Bug: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/13229209
Henrik Skupin changed story state to finished in Pivotal Tracker
Henrik Skupin deleted the linked story in Pivotal Tracker
Comment on attachment 529465 [details] [diff] [review] Writable check - v2 >+storage.path_not_writable=The specified folder can not be read-only. Please select a different folder. I have to agree with Aleksej, the first sentence is kinda hard to understand. It's probably kinda hard to formulate the right sentence with 'read-only' only. Why can't we simply say: "The specified folder is 'read-only' but needs write permissions. Please ..."?
Attachment #529465 - Flags: review?(hskupin) → review-
Attached patch Writable check - v3 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
"The specified folder is read-only, it must have a write permission. Please select a different folder."
Attachment #529465 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #532038 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Comment on attachment 532038 [details] [diff] [review] Writable check - v3 >+storage.path_not_writable=The specified folder is read-only, it must have a write permission. Please select a different folder. Could we agree on "The specified folder is read-only, but must have write permission"? I have never seen the usage of 'a' in any article and it reads strange that way. And with 'but' we can explicitly point out what is necessary.
Attached patch Writable check - v4 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
"The specified folder is read-only but must have write permission. Please select a different folder."
Attachment #532038 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #532038 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #532088 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Can't forget conjunction comma now can we
Attachment #532088 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #532088 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #532090 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #532090 - Flags: review?(hskupin) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
No longer blocks: 623204
We missed the noexec part of this bug. Sorry for that. Alex please file a new bug for it.
Summary: Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location, nor one mounted with noexec. → Don't allow user to select a non-writable storage location
(In reply to comment #18) Filed bug 668752.
Product: Mozilla QA → Mozilla QA Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: