812686 - Provide an indication to the user when downloading updates that they are in offline mode

Status: NEW

(Firefox :: General, defect, P4)

Description

[Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy]]

If a user goes in offline mode (common in B2G), then there is no UI that indicates an upgrade is still in progress in the about box.  This bug is for Desktop Firefox and involves updater code though.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Right click in you toolbar and turn on a menu bar. 
2. Go to Help | About to receive an update
3. From the file menu select Work Offline while an update is downloading
4. Wait some time.
5. Go to the file menu and select Work Online
6. The update resumes from where it was.

Actual Results:
In Step 4, there is no UI showing that the user is offline. It just stays with a "Downloading..." message forever until the user goes back online.

Expected Results:
There should be some kind of UI saying that the download was interrupted. Then once you go online again it should hide that UI and continue the donwload as it does already.

We should provide a notification for use in the "about dialog" about "paused / resumed" updates because of "offline/online" mode.
Then a B2G Gaia spin off bug can be created to use similar code.

See this code:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/update/nsUpdateService.js#3535
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/update/nsUpdateService.js#1919

Comment 1

[Robert Strong (they/them - no direct email)]

Would need to be implemented in Firefox code so changing product and component.

Note: when the ability to update was added to the about dialog UX asked for minimal error messages.

Comment 2

[Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy]]

It's not really an error but just a message that indicates that it's paused because the user is in offline mode. I wasn't sure if we wanted to add a specific notification from updater code as well, but maybe we can just listen for the same online and offline events in the about dialog.

Comment 3

[Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo)]

Marking this as a soft blocker. Clearly something that we want to fix but the notification that the download is paused will not block ship.

Comment 4

[Kai-Chih Hu [:khu]]

Should this be bb+ because 812584 is bb+? (bug 812584 depends on this case.)
Or, both are bb-?

Comment 5

[Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy]]

I don't think this should be bb+.

Comment 6

[Andrew Overholt [:overholt]]

(In reply to Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] from comment #5)
> I don't think this should be bb+.

Should this then be removed as a dependency of bug 812584?

Comment 7

[Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy]]

(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #6)
> (In reply to Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] from comment #5)
> > I don't think this should be bb+.
> 
> Should this then be removed as a dependency of bug 812584?

A valid dependency exists, but it does not hard block bug 812584 from being fixed or landing.  I believe we use dependencies when it makes sense and not only when it is a hard block, but if you'd really like to, feel free.

Comment 8

[Andrew Overholt [:overholt]]

(In reply to Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] from comment #5)
> > > I don't think this should be bb+.
> > 
> > Should this then be removed as a dependency of bug 812584?
> 
> A valid dependency exists, but it does not hard block bug 812584 from being
> fixed or landing.  I believe we use dependencies when it makes sense and not
> only when it is a hard block, but if you'd really like to, feel free.

I just spoke with Marshall and he suggested breaking the dependency.  I'll also bb- based on your input.