Closed
Bug 1454202
Opened 6 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
Replace uses of callback-based AddonManager APIs with promise-based versions
Categories
(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, enhancement, P2)
Toolkit
Add-ons Manager
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla61
| Tracking | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| firefox61 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: kmag, Assigned: kmag)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(13 files)
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
|
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
aswan
:
review+
|
Details |
No description provided.| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (spam) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
|
||
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968012 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 1c - Manually fix non-eslint issues after auto-rewrite. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236690/#review242450 Code analysis found 1 defect in this patch: - 1 defect found by mozlint You can run this analysis locally with: - `./mach lint path/to/file` (JS/Python) If you see a problem in this automated review, please report it here: http://bit.ly/2y9N9Vx ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/browser/browser_discovery.js:110 (Diff revision 1) > isnot(hash, null, "There should be a hash"); > try { > var data = JSON.parse(hash); > } catch (e) { > ok(false, "Hash should have been valid JSON: " + e); > aCallback(); Error: 'acallback' is not defined. [eslint: no-undef]
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (spam) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (spam) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
|
|
||
Comment 24•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968094 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3c - Convert add-on providers to use promise-based methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236770/#review242492 Code analysis found 1 defect in this patch: - 1 defect found by mozlint You can run this analysis locally with: - `./mach lint path/to/file` (JS/Python) If you see a problem in this automated review, please report it here: http://bit.ly/2y9N9Vx ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/GMPProvider.jsm:636 (Diff revision 1) > } > > let plugin = this._plugins.get(aId); > if (plugin && !GMPUtils.isPluginHidden(plugin)) { > - aCallback(plugin.wrapper); > + return plugin.wrapper; > } else { Error: Unnecessary 'else' after 'return'. [eslint: no-else-return]
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
| Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
|
|
||
Comment 32•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968094 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3c - Convert add-on providers to use promise-based methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236770/#review242502 Code analysis found 1 defect in this patch: - 1 defect found by mozlint You can run this analysis locally with: - `./mach lint path/to/file` (JS/Python) If you see a problem in this automated review, please report it here: http://bit.ly/2y9N9Vx ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/GMPProvider.jsm:636 (Diff revision 2) > } > > let plugin = this._plugins.get(aId); > if (plugin && !GMPUtils.isPluginHidden(plugin)) { > - aCallback(plugin.wrapper); > + return plugin.wrapper; > } else { Error: Unnecessary 'else' after 'return'. [eslint: no-else-return]
|
||
Comment 33•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968010 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 1a - Auto-replace uses of callback-based AddonManager APIs with Promise-based versions. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236686/#review242784 Having a bunch of local variables with `aFoo` names is unforunate :( I think all the sub-parts for part 1 should be folded together for landing... ::: browser/components/preferences/in-content/tests/browser_extension_controlled.js:23 (Diff revision 2) > function installAddon(xpiName) { > let filePath = getSupportsFile(`addons/${xpiName}`).file; > - return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { > - AddonManager.getInstallForFile(filePath, install => { > + return new Promise(async (resolve, reject) => { > + let install = await AddonManager.getInstallForFile(filePath); > - if (!install) { > + if (!install) { > - throw new Error(`An install was not created for ${filePath}`); > + throw new Error(`An install was not created for ${filePath}`); > - } > + } > - install.addListener({ > + install.addListener({ > - onDownloadFailed: reject, > + onDownloadFailed: reject, > - onDownloadCancelled: reject, > + onDownloadCancelled: reject, > - onInstallFailed: reject, > + onInstallFailed: reject, > - onInstallCancelled: reject, > + onInstallCancelled: reject, > - onInstallEnded: resolve > + onInstallEnded: resolve > - }); > + }); > - install.install(); > + install.install(); > - }); > + }); > - }); > } this could be ripped out and replaced with `AddonTestUtils.promiseInstallFile()` ::: browser/tools/mozscreenshots/mozscreenshots/extension/bootstrap.js:35 (Diff revision 2) > - AddonManager.getAddonByID(data.id, function(addon) { > + let addon = await AddonManager.getAddonByID(data.id); > - let extensionPath = addon.getResourceURI(); > + let extensionPath = addon.getResourceURI(); I think this can just be `data.resourceURI`, no async anythign needed ::: devtools/client/aboutdebugging/test/head.js:436 (Diff revision 2) > function installAddonWithManager(filePath) { > - return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { > - AddonManager.getInstallForFile(filePath, install => { > + return new Promise(async (resolve, reject) => { > + let install = await AddonManager.getInstallForFile(filePath); > - if (!install) { > + if (!install) { > - throw new Error(`An install was not created for ${filePath}`); > + throw new Error(`An install was not created for ${filePath}`); > - } > + } > - install.addListener({ > + install.addListener({ > - onDownloadFailed: reject, > + onDownloadFailed: reject, > - onDownloadCancelled: reject, > + onDownloadCancelled: reject, > - onInstallFailed: reject, > + onInstallFailed: reject, > - onInstallCancelled: reject, > + onInstallCancelled: reject, > - onInstallEnded: resolve > + onInstallEnded: resolve > - }); > + }); > - install.install(); > + install.install(); > - }); > + }); > - }); > } another application for AddonTestUtils ::: toolkit/components/extensions/parent/ext-runtime.js:97 (Diff revision 2) > if (extension.upgrade) { > // If there is a pending update, install it now. > extension.upgrade.install(); > } else { > // Otherwise, reload the current extension. > - AddonManager.getAddonByID(extension.id, addon => { > + let addon = await AddonManager.getAddonByID(extension.id); meh this should really be using instanceID ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/xpcshell/test_blocklist_regexp.js (Diff revision 2) > - // Blocklist contains two entries that will match this addon - ensure > - // that the first one is applied. why drop the comment?
Attachment #8968010 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 34•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968011 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 1b - Manually fix eslint errors after auto-rewrite. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236688/#review242802
Attachment #8968011 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 35•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968012 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 1c - Manually fix non-eslint issues after auto-rewrite. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236690/#review242804
Attachment #8968012 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 36•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968022 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2a - Add promise variants for more AOM test "helper" functions. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236712/#review242808 ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/browser/head.js:351 (Diff revision 1) > function wait_for_view_load(aManagerWindow, aCallback, aForceWait, aLongerTimeout) { > + let p = new Promise(resolve => { > - requestLongerTimeout(aLongerTimeout ? aLongerTimeout : 2); > + requestLongerTimeout(aLongerTimeout ? aLongerTimeout : 2); > > - if (!aForceWait && !aManagerWindow.gViewController.isLoading) { > + if (!aForceWait && !aManagerWindow.gViewController.isLoading) { > - log_exceptions(aCallback, aManagerWindow); > + log_exceptions(resolve, aManagerWindow); Does `log_exceptions()` here actually do anything any more?
|
Assignee | |
Comment 37•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968022 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2a - Add promise variants for more AOM test "helper" functions. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236712/#review242808 > Does `log_exceptions()` here actually do anything any more? Nope.
|
|
||
Comment 38•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968022 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2a - Add promise variants for more AOM test "helper" functions. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236712/#review242808 > Nope. so lets just get rid of it (and in the similar lines below)
|
|
||
Comment 39•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968022 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2a - Add promise variants for more AOM test "helper" functions. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236712/#review242858 r=me with the no-op log_exceptions() calls removed
Attachment #8968022 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 40•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968025 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2d - More scripted rewrites. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236718/#review242868 ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/browser/browser_bug562797.js:549 (Diff revision 2) > > - clickLink(aManager, "link-good", function() { > + await clickLink(aManager, "link-good"); > - info("2"); > + info("2"); > - is_in_discovery(aManager, SECOND_URL, true, false); > + is_in_discovery(aManager, SECOND_URL, true, false); > > - waitForLoad(aManager, function() { > + Promise.resolve().then(() => { is the Promise.resolve() necessary? if it is, how about something like: ``` // comment explaining why we need a run through the event loop await Promise.resolve(); ... ```
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 41•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968025 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2d - More scripted rewrites. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236718/#review242868 > is the Promise.resolve() necessary? > if it is, how about something like: > > ``` > // comment explaining why we need a run through the event loop > await Promise.resolve(); > ... > ``` It may or may not be necessary, but the `await` version wouldn't help. The whole point is to make the go_back() call run after waitForLoad() has added its listeners. I have no idea if that's actually necessary, since most of the other code in this test that follows this pattern does not do any such thing, but there were a handful of cases that did.
|
|
||
Comment 42•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968025 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2d - More scripted rewrites. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236718/#review242868 > It may or may not be necessary, but the `await` version wouldn't help. The whole point is to make the go_back() call run after waitForLoad() has added its listeners. I have no idea if that's actually necessary, since most of the other code in this test that follows this pattern does not do any such thing, but there were a handful of cases that did. Okay then how about something like ``` let loadPromise = waitForLoad(...); go_back(); await loadPromise; ```
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 43•6 years ago
|
||
Ugh. How about executeSoon(go_back)?
|
|
||
Comment 44•6 years ago
|
||
We use that pattern lots of places. If you really don't like it, please at least at a comment so its clear what's happening even while reading quickly through the test.
|
|
||
Comment 45•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968024 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2c - Manually fix issues in auto-rewrite. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236716/#review243086 ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/browser/browser_discovery.js:445 (Diff revision 1) > > EventUtils.synthesizeMouse(gCategoryUtilities.get("discover"), 2, 2, { }, gManagerWindow); > > + Promise.resolve().then(() => { > + ok(isLoading(), "Should be loading"); > + // This will actually stop the about:blank load I don't understand this, is this comment still correct?
|
|
||
Comment 46•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968023 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2b - Auto-rewrite AOM UI tests to use promise variants of helpers. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236714/#review243210 Please squash 2b and 2c together for landing
Attachment #8968023 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 47•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968024 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2c - Manually fix issues in auto-rewrite. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236716/#review243212 r=me if all the `Promise.resolve().then(...` stuff either gets re-written or gets comments explaining the exact sequence of operations required.
Attachment #8968024 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 48•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968025 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2d - More scripted rewrites. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236718/#review243214 Same comment as part 2c about the `Promise.resolve().then` pattern. Also, this could use a better comment, I don't think the scripting matters, how about just "modernize some addons manager browser tests"
Attachment #8968025 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 49•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968092 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3a - Promisify more internal add-on manager methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236766/#review243216 ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/XPIInstall.jsm:1896 (Diff revision 2) > this.wrapper); > flushJarCache(this.file); > return; > } > > - let addon = await new Promise(resolve => { > + let addon = await XPIDatabase.getVisibleAddonForID(this.addon.id); this should be in part 3b? or just squash 3a and 3b together... ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/XPIProviderUtils.js:664 (Diff revision 2) > addonDB => { > - getRepositoryAddon(_findAddon(addonDB, aFilter), makeSafe(aCallback)); > + return getRepositoryAddon(_findAddon(addonDB, aFilter)); > }) nit: can just become `addonDB => getRepositoryAddon(...)`
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 50•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968092 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3a - Promisify more internal add-on manager methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236766/#review243216 > this should be in part 3b? > or just squash 3a and 3b together... Yeah, I tried to rebase a typo fix and the whole change wound up in this revision.
|
|
||
Comment 51•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968092 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3a - Promisify more internal add-on manager methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236766/#review243452
Attachment #8968092 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 52•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968093 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3b - Rewrite callers to use promise variants of internal APIs. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236768/#review243454 I would prefer rolling this into 3a before landing
Attachment #8968093 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 53•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968094 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3c - Convert add-on providers to use promise-based methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236770/#review243220 Nice. I don't get the direct connection to 3a and 3b though. ::: toolkit/components/telemetry/tests/unit/test_TelemetryEnvironment.js:254 (Diff revision 2) > addAddon(aAddon) { > this._addons.push(aAddon); > AddonManagerPrivate.callAddonListeners("onInstalled", new MockAddonWrapper(aAddon)); > }, > > - getAddonsByTypes(aTypes, aCallback) { > + async getAddonsByTypes(aTypes) { no need for async
Attachment #8968094 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 54•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968094 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3c - Convert add-on providers to use promise-based methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236770/#review243220 Yeah, I guess it probably makes more sense as part 4.
|
|
||
Comment 55•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968095 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 4a - Remove callback-based variants of most AddonManager APIs. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236772/#review243468 ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/XPIProvider.jsm:3414 (Diff revision 2) > async getAddonByID(aId) { > let aAddon = await XPIDatabase.getVisibleAddonForID(aId); > return aAddon ? aAddon.wrapper : null; > }, > > + syncGetAddonByID(aId) { please add a comment explaining that this will always return null if the database isn't loaded and that is is up to the caller to be aware of that (ie, they should not assume that the given addon isn't installed if this returns null unless they are certain that the db is loaded) ::: toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/browser/browser_CTP_plugins.js:43 (Diff revision 2) > resetBlocklist(); > }); > > let pluginTag = getTestPluginTag(); > pluginTag.enabledState = Ci.nsIPluginTag.STATE_CLICKTOPLAY; > - let managerWindow = await new Promise(resolve => open_manager("addons://list/plugin", resolve)); > + let managerWindow = await open_manager("addons://list/plugin"); should be in part 2b?
Attachment #8968095 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 56•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968096 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 4b - Remove interstitial callback argument from getInstall* APIs. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236774/#review243494 hooray
Attachment #8968096 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Comment 57•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review | ||
Comment on attachment 8968097 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 4c - Update callers for new getInstall* signature. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236776/#review243498 Nice, thank you! This should be rolled into 4b too I think.
Attachment #8968097 -
Flags: review?(aswan) → review+
|
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P2
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 58•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968094 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 3c - Convert add-on providers to use promise-based methods. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236770/#review243220 > no need for async Bah. Replied to this earlier but reviewboard barfed. Without `async`, this will return a raw array, rather than a promise. That will work the same for callers that use `await`, but not for callers that use `.then()`. I could return `Promise.resolve(...)`, but I'd rather be consistent, and use `async` for async APIs where possible.
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 59•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968024 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 2c - Manually fix issues in auto-rewrite. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236716/#review243086 > I don't understand this, is this comment still correct? It's as correct as it's ever been. Whether it was ever correct, I'm not sure.
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 60•6 years ago
|
||
| mozreview-review-reply | ||
Comment on attachment 8968095 [details] Bug 1454202: Part 4a - Remove callback-based variants of most AddonManager APIs. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/236772/#review243468 > should be in part 2b? No. Part 2b was a scripted rewrite, but this was a manual change for a usage that didn't fit that pattern (i.e., something that already promisified the old API, rather than passing a callback).
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 61•6 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f297b23906c2a9e87b34a6cf3aa9aa8dcd73db55 Bug 1454202: Part 1 - Update legacy callers to use Promise-based AddonManager APIs. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/3a5b866d240e67287d5cb1be626287c233dff044 Bug 1454202: Part 2a - Add promise variants for more AOM test "helper" functions. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/66883c7f740a513e414c00565123cc16355e9119 Bug 1454202: Part 2b-c - Update AOM UI tests to use promise variants of helpers. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/4bb25432060f5e7d7c9bc174961a71c2ea207768 Bug 1454202: Part 2d - Modernize other callback-based AOM UI tests. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0244913345d307219cf92d90addf2e3cd89348ed Bug 1454202: Part 3a - Promisify more internal add-on manager methods. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/773b6d28b99067395102db127a526b6d08871812 Bug 1454202: Part 3b - Rewrite callers to use promise variants of internal APIs. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/112ff1e321a11fac3895742f1f35fe12d2acf903 Bug 1454202: Part 4 - Convert add-on providers to use promise-based methods. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/ebacf44a86dc27644717e72a2a302d586d5d81a1 Bug 1454202: Part 5a - Remove callback-based variants of most AddonManager APIs. r=aswan https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/81d9e69a3539603114d1b97f9700c14f45affd49 Bug 1454202: Part 5b-c - Remove interstitial callback argument from getInstall* APIs. r=aswan
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 62•6 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/bc824db66c5331d00f5de2fe0a39b5790a183513 Bug 1454202: Follow-up: Fix straggler callback-based API caller. r=me,test-only DONTBUILD
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 63•6 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/6794d2faf47c71da2f28e299e596b3f9808f490f Bug 1454202: Follow-up: Fix Marionette test bustage. r=bustage,test-only
|
||
Comment 64•6 years ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f297b23906c2 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3a5b866d240e https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/66883c7f740a https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4bb25432060f https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0244913345d3 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/773b6d28b990 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/112ff1e321a1 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ebacf44a86dc https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/81d9e69a3539 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bc824db66c53 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6794d2faf47c
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
status-firefox61:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla61
|
|
Assignee | |
Updated•6 years ago
|
Blocks: aom-code-quality
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Flags: qe-verify-
|
||
Comment 65•6 years ago
|
||
Could you please add a check, that if still a callback is provided like the old (documented) API AddonManager.getAllAddons(mycallback); that I get ANY information on this API change on the console? At the moment it just does nothing without any feedback. Very hard to find. Took me 30min I would like to have back :-) Otherwise: Nice!
|
||
Updated•5 years ago
|
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•