759151 - prepare 3.6.{13..28} automatic update, with add-on compat disabled

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Release Engineering :: Release Requests, defect)

Comment 1

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

I just realized that since we're doing this next week we may want to target 13.0 instead of 12.0. Alex, what say you?

Comment 2

[u279076]

I was thinking the same thing. Although, if we still targeted 12.0 it would just mean 3.6 users updating 3.6 -> 12.0 -> 13.0.

Comment 3

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

Let's target 12.0 since we don't want 3.6 users being updated to the unvetted 13.0 until we unthrottle fully.

Comment 4

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the advertised update for a moment there (as opposed to automatic). Yes - we'll want to push this out to FF13 instead of pushing to FF12 in the interim. We may want to move the update push out till we unthrottle FF13 in that case - the following week. I'll get back to you guys.

Comment 5

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

13:59 <akeybl> so I was thinking about the 3.6 auto updates w/ add-on compatibility checks disabled
13:59 <akeybl> similar to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=759767
14:00 <akeybl> we want to push them to 12 indefinitely
14:00 <akeybl> or else they'll never find out that their platform is desupported if they're on win xp sp 1 or 
               win 2k
14:00 <akeybl> they'll auto update from 12 on shortly afterwards
14:00 <akeybl> if there's a bug tracking the final final round of updates, let me know and I can update it 
               with that logic
14:01 <bhearsum> ah, ok
14:01 <bhearsum> so 3.6.x -> 12 -> latest
14:01 <akeybl> yeah
14:01 <akeybl> with some getting left behind on 12
14:01 <bhearsum> sure, that shouldn't be a problem
14:01 <akeybl> but notified, thankfully

Comment 6

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

Thanks for pasting IRC. Yep, we'll indefinitely want to update to 12 for 3.6.{13-28} after 6/5. Sorry for the churn.

Comment 7

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Which detailsUrl do we want to use here? https://www.mozilla.org/%LOCALE%/firefox/unsupported/EOL - same as bug 759148?

Comment 8

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

So far, I've done:
# ffxbld@aus3-staging
cd /opt/aus2/snippets/staging
rsync -av Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-MU-20120528-test/ Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon-test/
find Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon-test -type f -exec sed -i -e 's/major/minor/g' {} \;
for i in Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon-test/Firefox/*; do version=${i##*/}; find $i -type f -exec sed -i -e "s/12\.0\.0\.0/$version/" {} \; ; done
rsync -av Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-MU-20120528/ Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon/
find Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon -type f -exec sed -i -e 's/major/minor/g' {} \;
for i in Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon/Firefox/*; do version=${i##*/}; find $i -type f -exec sed -i -e "s/12\.0\.0\.0/$version/" {} \; ; done

Waiting to hear back about the detailsUrl before I push the test snippets.

Comment 9

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

(In reply to Ben Hearsum [:bhearsum] from comment #7)
> Which detailsUrl do we want to use here?
> https://www.mozilla.org/%LOCALE%/firefox/unsupported/EOL - same as bug
> 759148?

https://www.mozilla.org/%LOCALE%/firefox/unsupported/details/

Also, we'll want WN pages enabled for this update.

Comment 10

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

(In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #9)
> Also, we'll want WN pages enabled for this update.

Couldn't turn them off even if we wanted to!

Comment 11

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Okay, I ran:
find Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon -type f -exec sed -i -e 's,EOL,details/,g' {} \;
find Firefox-3.6.x-12.0-build1-addon-test -type f -exec sed -i -e 's,EOL,details/,g' {} \;


to fix these up. I pushed the test snippets, and announced on r-d.

Comment 12

[u279076]

Attachment: Screenshot

Overall these test fine, except I am getting an Add-on Check dialog with Firebug installed in Firefox 3.6.27 -> 12.0 en-US. See attached screenshot.

I'm not able to reproduce this with Firefox 3.6.25, 3.6.28, or 3.6.13. Might be intermittent or version specific.

Comment 13

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

(In reply to Anthony Hughes, Mozilla QA (irc: ashughes) from comment #12)
> Created attachment 629419 [details]
> Screenshot
> 
> Overall these test fine, except I am getting an Add-on Check dialog with
> Firebug installed in Firefox 3.6.27 -> 12.0 en-US. See attached screenshot.
> 
> I'm not able to reproduce this with Firefox 3.6.25, 3.6.28, or 3.6.13. Might
> be intermittent or version specific.

Did you try updating with any other add-ons that were incompatible with anything higher than FF3.6?

Comment 14

[u279076]

Not specifically, no. AMO's compatibility report only goes back to Firefox 4. Can you or someone else identify some add-ons I can use to test?

Comment 15

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

(In reply to Anthony Hughes, Mozilla QA (irc: ashughes) from comment #14)
> Not specifically, no. AMO's compatibility report only goes back to Firefox
> 4. Can you or someone else identify some add-ons I can use to test?

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2012/05/24/addons-firefox-3-6/ will be a good start. Thanks jorgev! :)

Comment 16

[Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] (he/him)]

I intentionally avoided linking to them in the blog post, so here are a few:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mr-tech-toolkit/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/snap-links/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/gmail-notifier/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/rapidshare-downloadhelper/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/update-notifier/

Comment 17

[u279076]

Attachment: Screenshot 2

Comment 18

[u279076]

(In reply to Anthony Hughes, Mozilla QA (irc: ashughes) from comment #17)
> Created attachment 629535 [details]
> Screenshot 2

Here is what I see when updating Firefox 3.6.28 -> 12 with the addons mentioned in comment 16 installed.

Comment 19

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

That dialog is post-update, right ? CC'ing some Add-On Manager experten.

Comment 20

[u279076]

Yeah. For clarification, I restart Firefox, it installs the update, then this Addon Check dialog appears.

Comment 21

[u279076]

I guess the question is, is this the add-on compatibility check that's supposed to be disabled or is it something else we shipped in Firefox 12?

Comment 22

[u279076]

Attachment: Screenshot 3

Sorry guys, I think I may have raised a red flag unnecessarily. I'm not sure that dialog I was seeing before is the compatibility check. The dialog in this screenshot is.

Someone please confirm. If it's not then we can proceed with pushing this live whenever we want.

Comment 23

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

AIUI Screenshot2 is the dialog to help users get rid of side-loaded extensions (ie Java Console or things more malicious). Not obvious to me why it's showing up on this update path when all the extensions where installed by the user. Perhaps it can't tell properly on updates from 3.6 because the data is less fine-grained (complete speculation). Over to Mossop/Unfocused ....

Comment 24

[Dave Townsend [:mossop]]

(In reply to Nick Thomas [:nthomas] from comment #23)
> AIUI Screenshot2 is the dialog to help users get rid of side-loaded
> extensions (ie Java Console or things more malicious). Not obvious to me why
> it's showing up on this update path when all the extensions where installed
> by the user. Perhaps it can't tell properly on updates from 3.6 because the
> data is less fine-grained (complete speculation). Over to Mossop/Unfocused
> ....

No, simply that we never fixed the bug to stop displaying that UI when the only add-ons were user installed (bug 680114)

Comment 25

[u279076]

Thanks Dave. I think we can push this live whenever we want. Here's my reasoning:
* QA has tested 3.6.* -> 12.0 updates on releasetest download and install automatically
* Screenshot 1 & 2 is bug 680114 (not a blocker to this bug)
* Screenshot 3 is not displayed at any point during 3.6.* -> 12 updates

Comment 26

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

Shipped.

Comment 27

[u279076]

Verified fixed on release channel.

Comment 28

[[:philipp]]

is this also pushed to mac os x 10.4 users? because some entires by users in the SUMO forums suggest that

Comment 29

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

See bug 762472 :-)