See updateTextOverflow in urlbarBindings.xml.

rebased

Comment on attachment 9010596 [details] [diff] [review] patch Review of attachment 9010596 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Looks good. For future reference, this functionality is already covered by browser/base/content/test/urlbar/browser_urlOverflow.js which we'll have to get working before we can enable the new urlbar functionality.

Pushed by dgottwald@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/a6b130810bc4 Port URL overflow handling from urlbarBindings.xml to UrlbarInput.jsm. r=standard8

Backed out changeset a6b130810bc4 (Bug 1491252) for xpcshall failures in browser/components/urlbar/tests/unit/test_UrlbarInput_unit.js Push with failures: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=mozilla-inbound&resultStatus=testfailed,busted,exception&classifiedState=unclassified&revision=a6b130810bc42f125709fe40c2e26fe9f5f985f6&selectedJob=200771121 Failure log: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer.html#?job_id=200771121&repo=mozilla-inbound&lineNumber=10665 Backout: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/ec103090a314db31d320c37eaffc5dfa4532cb02

(In reply to Noemi Erli[:noemi_erli] from comment #5) > Backed out changeset a6b130810bc4 (Bug 1491252) for xpcshall failures in > browser/components/urlbar/tests/unit/test_UrlbarInput_unit.js ERROR Unexpected exception TypeError: this.inputField is undefined; can't access its "addEventListener" property at resource:///modules/UrlbarInput.jsm:79 UrlbarInput@resource:///modules/UrlbarInput.jsm:79:5 *sigh* UrlbarInput.jsm is very UI focused, so in hindsight it was probably a bad idea to test this with an xpcshell test rather than a mochitest-browser one. For now, I'll just extend the hacks in the test to make it pass.

Pushed by dgottwald@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f138b7d87e7f Port URL overflow handling from urlbarBindings.xml to UrlbarInput.jsm. r=standard8

(In reply to Dão Gottwald [::dao] from comment #6) > For now, I'll just extend the hacks in the test to make it pass. Hacks, or proper external dependency stubbing? Let's make sure we're all on the same page re. this!

(In reply to Mike de Boer [:mikedeboer] from comment #9) > (In reply to Dão Gottwald [::dao] from comment #6) > > For now, I'll just extend the hacks in the test to make it pass. > > Hacks, or proper external dependency stubbing? Let's make sure we're all on > the same page re. this! I was also uncertain when I landed the patch that using xpcshell-test was the right thing to do, but I thought I'd try it anyway. The problem with xpcshell is that we don't have any way to create fake elements or simulate the, that means we have to formulate our own, but that's likely to get harder as we extend the view components. I think the tests are at the right level - we should generally be doing a lot more actual unit testing than what we do - however I think we should just move these to mochitests. We can then use real or fake elements as inputs, and stub the methods on those where we need to. I'll file a bug and get this done today.

Filed bug 1493668