901565 - Small desktop icons displayed when Windows desktop shortcuts set to display large icons

Status: NEW

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Kevin Brosnan [Ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: small-icons-desktop.png

I have several shortcuts on my desktop to common versions of Firefox. My Windows desktop is set to display large icons. Sometime in the last several days the icons are only displayed in the small size.

7-24-2013 build is good

Setting 26 affected as I expect the merge is in process.

Comment 1

[Alice0775 White]

Regression window(m-c)
Good:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/dbd7d55d64ff
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20130730 Firefox/25.0 ID:20130730062253
Bad:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/129ce98f4cb2
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20130730 Firefox/25.0 ID:20130730100815
Pushlog:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=dbd7d55d64ff&tochange=129ce98f4cb2


Regression window(m-i)
Good:
http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c2dc8dbb77ef
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20130729 Firefox/25.0 ID:20130729151217
Bad:
http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/93ba277cb5c4
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20130729 Firefox/25.0 ID:20130729154316
Pushlog:
http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=c2dc8dbb77ef&tochange=93ba277cb5c4


Regression window(fx)
Good:
http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/fx-team/rev/673fab39681d
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20130730 Firefox/25.0 ID:20130730094111
Bad:
http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/fx-team/rev/72240998c094
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20130730 Firefox/25.0 ID:20130730101312
Pushlog:
http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/fx-team/pushloghtml?fromchange=673fab39681d&tochange=72240998c094


Suspected: Bug 889417

Comment 2

[Stephen Horlander [:shorlander]]

Are you only seeing this with the Nightly icon?

Comment 3

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

Aurora 25 builds are now available to check, adding a needinfo on kbrosnan.

Comment 4

[Kevin Brosnan [Ex-Mozilla]]

I've been booted into Linux recently. Will boot into Windows when I get a chance.

Comment 6

[Kevin Brosnan]

This did not happen with the Aurora update to 25a2.

Comment 7

[Lukas Blakk [:lsblakk] use ?needinfo]

Dolske - tracking 26 but really this only affects Nightly and will just continue to do so until fixed - can you ask someone to look into this?

Comment 8

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Hmm. I don't see anything wrong with the firefox.ico for the Nightly branding -- it's got 4 sizes -- 256x256, 48x48, 32x32, and 16x16. Same as the official branding's firefox.ico. I vaguely remember something about the order of the .ico contents mattering, but both the old and new nightly icons have the first 4 icons sizes in the same order. (The old nightly icon also includes 256 and 16 colors versions, but that shouldn't be in play here.)

Opening up the Nightly firefox.exe in VisualStudio to look at its icon resources looks normal to me too.

Yet I can also reproduce this on my Win8 desktop (right click desktop, View --> Large Icons). Release looks ok (I still had FF22 installed with the old icon, but updating it to FF23 with the new icon is also ok.) I guess it's good that this appears to be a Nightly-only bug, but I'm still a bit nervous not understanding why.

I'm not really sure what would cause this. Maybe rstrong has a clue?

Comment 9

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Attachment: When using Extra Large icons (lol)

This is even more comical in the File Explorer, when using View --> Extra Large Icons

Comment 10

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

Not sure what is going on yet but I definitely see a difference between firefox.ico when compared with aurora and release.

Stephen, can you take a look at the nightly firefox.ico and compare it to the aurora firefox.ico that you created in bug 889417.

Comment 11

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

One more datapoint -- if I browse my mozilla-central tree with File Explorer in "extra large icons" mode, it correctly shows firefox.ico for all the branding flavors. So it seems like something in Windows just gets unhappy once the .ico is embedded in the .exe.

Comment 12

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

Also, saving the existing nightly firefox.ico using IcoFX makes it display properly.

Comment 13

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

Attachment: firefox.ico saved using IcoFX

I'll leave it up to Stephen if he wants to use the program he used to create the other icons or this one.

Comment 14

[Stephen Horlander [:shorlander]]

Attachment: Fix Updated Branding icos - i01

Saved with another editor:
- Fixes broken large Nightly icon
- Adds low color icons

Tested this on Windows XP — 8.1 with the exception of Vista.

Comment 15

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Comment on attachment 806319 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix Updated Branding icos - i01

Does this other editor have any better options for the 256-color (8bit) icons? They've got some pretty severe banding, would be nice if it could do a decent job of dithering. The 16-color icons are especially loltastic, but that's a lost cause to begin with.

Do we really need the 256x256 versions for 256 and 16 color?

Comment 16

[Lukas Blakk [:lsblakk] use ?needinfo]

Stephen can you wrap this one up?

Comment 17

[Stephen Horlander [:shorlander]]

> Does this other editor have any better options for the 256-color (8bit)
> icons? They've got some pretty severe banding, would be nice if it could do
> a decent job of dithering. The 16-color icons are especially loltastic, but
> that's a lost cause to begin with.

It does have a dithering option, however it didn't look nicer than the huge banding IMO.

> Do we really need the 256x256 versions for 256 and 16 color?

As far as I can tell Vista+ doesn't support 256 and 16 color as a user setting, but I am not really sure if there is a case where they can end up in that mode. E.g. Remote Desktop.

Comment 18

[Lukas Blakk [:lsblakk] use ?needinfo]

Do we want this uplifted on Monday for the second-to-last beta?  Please nominate if so, I'm assuming this is a low-risk branding fix.

Comment 19

[Lukas Blakk [:lsblakk] use ?needinfo]

Since this doesn't seem to be concerning anyone enough to land to central and nominate for uplift I'm removing tracking here.  There must not be very many users impacted and we can take an uplift when ready if low risk.

Comment 20

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

The bug assignee is inactive on Bugzilla, so the assignee is being reset.