STR: 1. On Ubuntu (perhaps on a HiDPI display), press Alt-Tab while Nightly is running. EXPECTED RESULTS: Crisp icon. ACTUAL RESULTS: Fuzzy icon. Looks like it's been upscaled. Up until bug 1151753's landing, the alt-tab switcher showed a nice crisp official-Firefox icon. After that bug's landing, it instead shows a fuzzy/gross Nightly icon. Not yet sure if this shows up on other platforms as well (if so, then presumably it started happening longer ago than bug 1151753 on those platforms, since bug 1151753 is a Linux-specific).

I tried to test this on Windows 10, but the alt-tab switcher looks completely different on Windows -- the icon shown there is much smaller. So for now, I'm only aware of this reproducing on Ubuntu. Makoto, can you reproduce & would you be interested in taking a look?

(I'm using Ubuntu 17.10 with GTK3 (gnome-shell), BTW -- that is the default starting in Ubuntu 17.10. This is on a Lenovo P50 which has HiDPI support -- though I'm not sure if the HiDPI stuff is involved in triggering this bug.)

We don't have high resolution icon file for GTK in browser/branding/nightly (browser/chrome/icons/default). Highest resolution is default48.png. Although we have mozicon128.png, it is in browser/icons :-<.

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #0) > STR: > 1. On Ubuntu (perhaps on a HiDPI display), press Alt-Tab while Nightly is > running. I verified that this issue does *not* seem to require HiDPI mode. I can reproduce it if I disable HiDPI and just set my display to have a native resolution of 1900x1020. (In reply to Makoto Kato [:m_kato] from comment #4) > We don't have high resolution icon file for GTK in browser/branding/nightly > (browser/chrome/icons/default). Highest resolution is default48.png. > Although we have mozicon128.png, it is in browser/icons :-<. Indeed, it looks like we have two different directories of icons, in each of our tarballs (release + Nightly): * Low-res icons in browser/chrome/icons/default: default16.png, default32.png, default48.png * One high-res icon in browser/icons: mozicon128.png Each image is square width/height equal to the number in its filename. We seem to be using default48.png upscaled to 110px, when really it'd be nice to be using the 128px version. Do we know how/why this is working correctly with the official Firefox icon, in Firefox release (and in Firefox Nightly before bug 1151753)? Maybe we're co-opting some native higher-res icon that's set up correctly to work with this tab-switcher -- though the directory structure looks pretty similar there. I'm seeing these Firefox png icons, and one of the higher-res ones is clearly being used for the app switcher: /usr/share/pixmaps/firefox.png # Symlink to ../../lib/firefox/browser/icons/mozicon128.png /usr/share/gnome-software/featured-firefox.png # 512x482px /usr/lib/firefox/browser/icons/mozicon128.png /usr/lib/firefox/browser/chrome/icons/default/default16.png /usr/lib/firefox/browser/chrome/icons/default/default48.png /usr/lib/firefox/browser/chrome/icons/default/default32.png

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #5) > Do we know how/why this is working correctly with the official Firefox icon, > in Firefox release (and in Firefox Nightly before bug 1151753)? Maybe we're I guess that you have firefox.desktop file that has icon entry. Also, official build has 256.png, but gtk widget won't recognize it (our code doesn't set 256.png). And bug 261679 added mozicon128.png, but its name isn't default128.png...

I file as bug 1415014 to move and rename mozicon128.png.

Comment on attachment 8928830 [details] bug 1414881 - Detect more resolution icons. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/200116/#review205278

Pushed by m_kato@ga2.so-net.ne.jp: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/198b1e4e5438 Detect more resolution icons. r=karlt

Hi Makoto, Is this worth uplifting to Beta58?

(In reply to Gerry Chang [:gchang] from comment #13) > Hi Makoto, > Is this worth uplifting to Beta58? WM_CLASS name isn't changed on beta and release since BrandShortName is firefox, so I don't think that this should be uplifted. And to uplift this, it requires bug 1415014 and bug 1416968.

Per comment #14, mark 58 as won't fix.