Bug 476430 implemented disabling of third-party installed add-ons. We've picked up most of this by default, but we didn't pick up the UI that prompts the user for add-ons that are third-party installed after the initial third-party prompt. If we don't pick up this code then a third-party app may install an add-on but it'll just get disabled by default and the user won't be prompted. The attached patch is a port of the browser parts of the main landing: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/eee41544cb84 I've also included appropriate pref changes so that our unit tests still work. We need this for TB 8, so looking for review in the next couple of hours so we can get it in the final beta. To test, download an add-on and place it in the extensions directory in the application folder or the user folder. Note that the name must match the extension id in the install.rdf with .xpi on the end, e.g. for DOM inspector this would be "firstname.lastname@example.org". Then start up Thunderbird, at which point you'll get a separate tab on the main window opened which allows you to choose to install the add-on or not. Try server push here just to sanity check that our tests aren't broken with this: http://build.mozillamessaging.com/tinderboxpushlog/?tree=ThunderbirdTry&rev=3c19c99db422
Attachment #570642 - Flags: review?(mconley)
Mark: Hey - while the code looks alright, I can't seem to trigger the desired behaviour on my Linux box. Here's my steps to reproduce: 1) Download try build for Linux (https://email@example.com/try-comm-central-linux/thunderbird-10.0a1.en-US.linux-i686.tar.bz2) 2) Download DOM Inspector, un-pack, make compatible with TB 10.0a1, and repack 3) Place DOM Inspector XPI into Thunderbird unpack directory, in the "extensions" folder. 4) Rename DOM Inspector XPI to "firstname.lastname@example.org" 5) Run Thunderbird What happens? DOM Inspector is disabled, but no UI was brought up to re-enable it What was expected? A tab should have been brought up, allowing me to re-enable the add-on.
Comment on attachment 570642 [details] [diff] [review] The fix Alright, got it working - probably just had the testing steps in the wrong order. The code looks good. Assuming the tests aren't broken on try, r=me.
Attachment #570642 - Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.