Closed
Bug 996074
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Completely remove xpcnativewrappers=no from DOMi chrome.manifest
Categories
(Other Applications :: DOM Inspector, defect)
Other Applications
DOM Inspector
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla32
People
(Reporter: bugzilla, Assigned: bugzilla)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 5 obsolete files)
5.98 KB,
patch
|
neil
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
The SeaMonkey-bundled DOM Inspector addon still comes with a chrome.manifest containing an "xpcnativewrappers=no" directive, which is greatly outdated and causes a warning to appear in the JS console on startup of SeaMonkey; it should be removed as DOM Inspector does not use XPC native wrappers.
Note that bug 533599 was apparently supposed to do this, but doesn't seem to have completely removed all 'xpcnativewrappers' directives.
Comment on attachment 8406272 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to remove the obsolete directive from chrome.manifest
plz review
Attachment #8406272 -
Flags: review?(neil)
![]() |
||
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
You should also edit install.rdf and set the minVersion to whenever xpcnativewrappers=no was obsoleted.
OK on the basis that it was removed in Gecko 2.0, I set the minversion to SM 2.1.
Attachment #8406272 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8406272 -
Flags: review?(neil)
I screwed up the last patch... here's version 3, which is fixed.
Again, on the basis that it was removed in Gecko 2.0, I set the minversion to SM 2.1.
Attachment #8406359 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8406392 -
Flags: review?(neil)
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
You need to change all of the minimum versions, including the big scary comment at the beginning.
Since you effectively require that XPCNativeWrapper.unwrap exists, you should also remove the backward compatibility check part of bug 533599.
Updated patch as per neil's suggestions.
Attachment #8406392 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8406392 -
Flags: review?(neil)
Attachment #8407211 -
Flags: review?(neil)
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8407211 [details] [diff] [review]
ver4.patch
> <!-- For maxVersion of applications that follow the rapid cycle pattern,
> use '(x)a1' (*-central) on default,
> and '(x-1).*' (*-aurora/beta/release) for branches. -->
AMO doesn't like us uploading new DOM Inspector builds with unreleased version numbers.
> <!-- Fennec -->
[Hmm, we should rip out Fennec support (and its overlay) (in a separate bug).]
>+ <em:maxVersion>32.0</em:maxVersion>
So the maximum this can be is 31a1 (right now) or 32a1 (after uplift) but not 32.0 (similarly for the other versions).
>+ <em:maxVersion>2.27.*</em:maxVersion>
And strangely this one is too low, not that we've been keeping the versions in sync ;-)
> <!-- Sunbird -->
[And Sunbird (and its overlay) should go too.]
>+ <em:maxVersion>32.0</em:maxVersion>
Ditto.
>+ <em:maxVersion>32.0</em:maxVersion>
Ditto.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to neil@parkwaycc.co.uk from comment #9)
> Comment on attachment 8407211 [details] [diff] [review]
> ver4.patch
>
> > <!-- For maxVersion of applications that follow the rapid cycle pattern,
> > use '(x)a1' (*-central) on default,
> > and '(x-1).*' (*-aurora/beta/release) for branches. -->
> AMO doesn't like us uploading new DOM Inspector builds with unreleased
> version numbers.
Curious, I looked at the maximum version I could bump my extension's compatibility to on AMO to get the maxversion. Anyway, with the Firefox rapid release cycle, that problem will be sorted in a week. Two at most. :-)
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jeremy Morton from comment #10)
> (In reply to from comment #9)
> > (From update of attachment 8407211 [details] [diff] [review])
> > > <!-- For maxVersion of applications that follow the rapid cycle pattern,
> > > use '(x)a1' (*-central) on default,
> > > and '(x-1).*' (*-aurora/beta/release) for branches. -->
> > AMO doesn't like us uploading new DOM Inspector builds with unreleased
> > version numbers.
>
> Curious, I looked at the maximum version I could bump my extension's
> compatibility to on AMO to get the maxversion.
Indeed, I see they offer 32.0 for Firefox and Thunderbird. I admit I was just reading from the bug that added that comment. (SeaMonkey version is still wrong though?) But I'd still like to stick with the a1 values for consistency.
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8407211 [details] [diff] [review]
ver4.patch
r=me if you switch to the current/next nightly version numbers.
Attachment #8407211 -
Flags: review?(neil) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
New version of patch.
Attachment #8407211 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8411746 -
Flags: review?(neil)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
Patch v6.
Attachment #8411746 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8411746 -
Flags: review?(neil)
Attachment #8411747 -
Flags: review?(neil)
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #8411747 -
Flags: review?(neil) → review+
Comment 15•11 years ago
|
||
(What to do about Fennec and Sunbird?)
![]() |
||
Comment 16•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to neil@parkwaycc.co.uk from comment #15)
> (What to do about Fennec and Sunbird?)
Sunbird is DOA. Sunbird specific code has been removed from /calendar/
Pushed to DOM Inspector repository
http://hg.mozilla.org/dom-inspector/rev/42d670ba3bb3
[push patch into dom-inspector repo]
Jeremy, in future please use the checkin-needed keyword.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Component: General → DOM Inspector
Product: SeaMonkey → Other Applications
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: push patch into dom-inspector repo
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla32
![]() |
||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → bugzilla
Blocks: DOMi2.0.15
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•