Remove the extensions.abuseReports.openDialog pref and the related implementation and XUL elements from about:addons
Categories
(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, task, P1)
Tracking
()
| Tracking | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| firefox78 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: rpl, Assigned: rpl)
References
Details
Attachments
(3 files)
|
(deleted),
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | |
|
(deleted),
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | |
|
Bug 1614653 - Remove abuse-report-frame.js and move openAbuseReport into extensions.js. r?mstriemer!
(deleted),
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details |
As part of Bug 1580554, we implemented a new dialog mode for the abuse report panel, initially used for the abuse reports triggered from AMO, and then also for the reports triggered from about:addons and the rest of the Firefox UI (starting from Firefox 73, Bug 1598079).
We remove the "extensions.abuseReports.openDialog" pref and the related code and XUL elements from the about:addons internals (e.g. a couple of nightly cycles after the "report panel in dialog mode" has reached release).
|
Assignee | |
Updated•5 years ago
|
|
|
Assignee | |
Updated•5 years ago
|
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 1•5 years ago
|
||
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 2•5 years ago
|
||
Depends on D71615
|
||
Updated•5 years ago
|
|
||
Comment 3•5 years ago
|
||
I think that the bug should be fixed by now because it blocks bug 1525179. It's the last thing still in the XUL page other than the browser for the HTML document.
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 4•5 years ago
|
||
Depends on D71616
|
||
Comment 6•5 years ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/92e149d41267
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/682318515715
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d3971308b443
|
|
||
Comment 7•5 years ago
|
||
Can this be uplifted to Beta?
|
|
||
Comment 8•5 years ago
|
||
Firefox Beta Uplift Request
Risk: Low because it only has an effect with the openDialog pref set to false
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 9•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Nicohumor from comment #7)
Can this be uplifted to Beta?
No. The risk may be low, but there is no real value for the user by uplifting this to beta, and so in my opinion it isn't something to uplift.
If Bug 1525179 is the reason why you think we should uplift this, then take into account that uplifting this wouldn't help with that neither:
Even if this was in 77 (even landed there, instead of being uplifted) it would not make it easier to get Bug 1525179 in 77, Bug 1525179 is a bigger (and more likely risky) change and I'm pretty sure that an uplift request for it would not be created nor accepted.
|
|
||
Comment 10•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Luca Greco [:rpl] [:luca] [:lgreco] from comment #9)
(In reply to Nicohumor from comment #7)
Can this be uplifted to Beta?
No. The risk may be low, but there is no real value for the user by uplifting this to beta, and so in my opinion it isn't something to uplift.
If Bug 1525179 is the reason why you think we should uplift this, then take into account that uplifting this wouldn't help with that neither:
Even if this was in 77 (even landed there, instead of being uplifted) it would not make it easier to get Bug 1525179 in 77, Bug 1525179 is a bigger (and more likely risky) change and I'm pretty sure that an uplift request for it would not be created nor accepted.
OK.
Description
•