783709 - Launching a web application on Nightly shows a window with no title and white content

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Firefox Graveyard :: Web Apps, defect)

Description

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Steps:

1. Go to apps.mozillalabs.com/appdir
2. Install a web application
2. Launch the web application

Expected:

The application should launch with no errors.

Actual:

The application window launches, but the title does not appear. A whitebox is seen in the window instead.

Comment 1

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Also reproduce on Ubuntu 12, so this likely OS independent. Getting a regression range now.

Comment 2

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Firefox Web Apps Regression Range

- 8/1/2012 Windows 7 - Working
- 8/10/2012 Windows 7 - Working
- 8/15/2012 Windows 7 - Working
- 8/16/2012 Windows 7 - Busted
- 8/17/2012 Windows 7 - Busted
- 8/17/2012 Ubuntu 12 - Busted

Getting a changelog shortly.

Comment 3

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?startdate=2012-08-15&enddate=2012-08-16

Comment 4

[Jason Smith [:jsmith]]

Broken changeset: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/07b53bdc212a

Bug likely to cause this - bug 770770.

Comment 5

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Attachment: patch v1: obvious, trivial fix

Apps still work on my debug build, which explains why I didn't see the problem while testing the fix for bug 770770.

This is a packaging bug: bug 770770 added a module but neglected to add it to the installer manifest, so it doesn't get packaged and isn't found when imported by webapp.js during startup.

Here's the obvious, trivial, one-line fix.

Requesting review from either Drew or Felipe, on the off-chance one of them is watching his bugmail this weekend, so we can land this sooner than later.

Comment 6

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Comment on attachment 653086 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v1: obvious, trivial fix

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9fd67bb245e3

Comment 7

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

Shouldn't we package webapprt/modules/*, like we do for modules/*? would avoid this problem in the future...

Comment 8

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9fd67bb245e3

Comment 9

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

(In reply to :Gavin Sharp (use [e-mail] for email) from comment #7)
> Shouldn't we package webapprt/modules/*, like we do for modules/*? would
> avoid this problem in the future...

One version of the patch in bug 725408 used a webapprt/* wildcard to package all files in that directory, but in bug 725408, comment 53, bsmedberg expressed a preference for listing each file.

And doing so turned out to be useful for this patch, which builds mochitest.xul and mochitest.js (for use during testing) but does not package them.

Nevertheless, perhaps the considerations are different for a module-specific wildcard (webapprt/modules/*).  cc:ing bsmedberg for his thoughts.

Comment 10

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Note that we already package dist/bin/modules/* that way:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/installer/package-manifest.in#494

Comment 11

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

Yeah, dist/bin/webapprt/* is different than dist/bin/webapprt/modules/*. With the latter, it's less likely that you'll accidentally package an unwanted file.

Comment 12

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

I filed bug 784209 for that.