From philip.chee at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 05:21:45 2008 From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:21:45 +0800 Subject: [Project_owners] Getting the panel (tab) id for tabs out of focus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:15:25 +0200, Jesper Staun Hansen wrote: > http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/xpfe/global/resources/content/bindings/tabbrowser.xml#926) > 925 var tabBrowser = this.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode; > 926 var tab = > document.getAnonymousElementByAttribute(tabBrowser, "linkedpanel", this.id); This "this" refers to one of the anonymous browser elements within the tabbrowser. > 331 var tabBrowser = > getBrowser().parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode; > 332 var tab = document.getAnonymousElementByAttribute(tabBrowser, "linkedpanel", this.id); Where is this bit of code running? And what does the "this" in "this.id" refer to? Um, you realize of course that the "this" object isn't fixed and is always relative to the context of where your code is currently running, don't you? Phil -- -==- Philip Chee , http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. [ ]Computers ARE the future. Oh the future looks grim! * TagZilla 0.066.6 From alta88 at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 05:30:30 2008 From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp]) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:30:30 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---On 2008.May.30 01:27 PM, Douglas E. Warner wrote: > alta88[nntp] wrote: >> i'm having trouble getting MoreLayoutsforThunderbird released to the >> next version. it's listed as No Extension, so there must be some >> error somewhere - where can one look? it has a .xpi extension, >> version has gone to 2.0pre (for Tb3.0pre), min/max Tb is 3.0a1 to >> 3.0.* and i've added updateInfoURL. > > Right now these errors aren't logged anywhere. Bringing it up here is > fine. > > There was a problem yesterday that caused new files not to be parsed > properly. The problem has been fixed and files added since yesterday > have been re-parsed. Let me know if it still doesn't show up properly. yes it eventually showed up in the Extensions list and was workable. > >> in general, it feels clunky using File Management. >> 1.if i already have an updateInfoURL in the install.rdf, then on click >> of the url link it should show it in the dialog. > > The em:updateInfoUrl isn't supported in install.rdf according to the > documentation on dev-mo [1]; if you have documentation that shows > otherwise I'd be glad to support it. > >> if i cancel, it shouldn't say 'saved'. did i save a blank? > > I can't reproduce this; would you mind checking again? > this happened when the xpi was in the No Extensions list. when it's in the Extensions list, it works fine, displaying the existing value if there is one and cancels properly. >> 2.if there's any parsing error etc. that fails the extension it has to >> be displayed. > > I assume you mean when the extension is uploaded and fails to be parsed? > > Right now the script that's responsible for parsing .xpi files doesn't > display any errors when the install.rdf can't be parsed as the only > place they would be displayed is in the CVS client. It might make sense > to log so we can display them in the file management tool beside the > file. yes, exactly. perhaps have a column that indicates upload/parse success/failure, with a link to the log. currently, a fail shows up as No Extension, with nothing else to indicate reason. seems like 'thing happen' not infrequently. not a huge biggie, but errors must be made known. logging and error handling is a small thing, but saves vast quantities of debugging time. thanks. > >> 3.if an install.rdf contains an entry for updateURL pointing to a >> valid update.rdf, then perhaps a column can state that. only then >> would one need to Generate an update.rdf url.. > > Are you asking for validation of an extension's update.rdf, or just > checking that the file exists, or that it's pointing at the correct > mozdev.org generated file? > all of the above; if the entry for updateURL exists in install.rdf, check if the location/file exists. only if not, indicate the Generate link. otherwise the link mostly won't be shown; being slow i thought it needed to be done each time.. > Right now we're generating an update.rdf regardless and the project > owner can choose to include it in their install.rdf. The link to > generate the update.rdf URL from an install.rdf is to allow developers > with new extensions get the URL to their mozdev.org-generated update.rdf > before they package their extension. > > Thanks for the ideas and criticisms. Let us know if there's anything > else we can do to improve these tools. > > -Doug > > [1] http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/install.rdf > From alta88 at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 05:33:39 2008 From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp]) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:33:39 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---On 2008.May.30 02:41 PM, Jesper Staun Hansen wrote: > 3.0.* is not possible for tb. > Check https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/appversions that's for AMO, not mozdev enforced. i believe. which leads to another thing - apparently AMO pushes out min/max version updates without need for a new xpi download and local install. can mozdev do this as well? From jesper at heroes-addon.dk Mon Jun 2 05:45:09 2008 From: jesper at heroes-addon.dk (Jesper Staun Hansen) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:45:09 +0200 Subject: [Project_owners] Getting the panel (tab) id for tabs out of focus In-Reply-To: <4840524D.7030704@heroes-addon.dk> References: <4840524D.7030704@heroes-addon.dk> Message-ID: <4843EB55.5060902@heroes-addon.dk> Found other methods and this can be discarded. Jesper Staun Hansen wrote: > As many already know then I have been trying get the tab id which is > queue for every tab (panel). > There is no trouble in getting the tab id for the tab in focus with: > getBrowser().selectedTab.linkedPanel > But having trouble with a working tab. > > There is some code in firefox's tabbrowser.xml (see > http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/xpfe/global/resources/content/bindings/tabbrowser.xml#926) > 925 var tabBrowser = this.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode; > 926 var tab = > document.getAnonymousElementByAttribute(tabBrowser, "linkedpanel", this.id); > > These lines should get the current working tab and not the selected tab. > But its not working as this.parentNode is not defined. > So I got some info back with this (all other parentNode usage is null): > > 330 try { > 331 var tabBrowser = > getBrowser().parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode; > 332 var tab = > document.getAnonymousElementByAttribute(tabBrowser, "linkedpanel", this.id); > 333 dump("..."+tab+"\n"); > 334 } catch (e) { dump("..."+e+"\n"); } > > Which returns this: > [Exception... "Could not convert JavaScript argument arg 0 > [nsIDOMDocumentXBL.getAnonymousElementByAttribute]" nsresult: > "0x80570009 (NS_ERROR_XPC_BAD_CONVERT_JS)" location: "JS frame :: > chrome://test/content/test.js :: getTab :: line 332" data: no] > > so it seems like there is "something"... > _______________________________________________ > Project_owners mailing list > Project_owners at mozdev.org > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners > > From philip.chee at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 08:01:40 2008 From: philip.chee at gmail.com (Philip Chee) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:01:40 +0800 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:33:39 -0400, alta88[nntp] wrote: > which leads to another thing - apparently AMO pushes out > min/max version updates without need for a new xpi download > and local install. can mozdev do this as well? No. What happens is that Firefox phones home to AMO and uses the new min/max versions to override the actual values in the XPIs install.rdf. Phil -- Philip Chee , http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. [ ]This hitteth the nail on the head. J. Heywood (1597-1580) * TagZilla 0.066.6 From atte.kemppila at iki.fi Mon Jun 2 11:25:59 2008 From: atte.kemppila at iki.fi (Atte =?iso-8859-1?q?Kemppil=E4?=) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 21:25:59 +0300 Subject: [Project_owners] Re-ordering template page title Message-ID: <200806022125.59668.atte.kemppila@iki.fi> I posted bug https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19219 and David Boswell asked me to post here before any decisions are made. Basically, I would like see template page title changed from "mozdev.org - : " to ": - mozdev.org". It would be more bookmark and google friendly. I remember reading some convincing writings about this but can't find them right now. So, if your project is using templates, what do you think? -- Atte Kemppil? From alta88 at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 11:27:34 2008 From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp]) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---On 2008.Jun.02 11:01 AM, Philip Chee wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:33:39 -0400, alta88[nntp] wrote: > >> which leads to another thing - apparently AMO pushes out >> min/max version updates without need for a new xpi download >> and local install. can mozdev do this as well? > > No. What happens is that Firefox phones home to AMO and uses the new > min/max versions to override the actual values in the XPIs install.rdf. > > Phil > oh. so AMO is hardcoded as the only such update source within Fx? still think it would be nice if an extension were done to include mozdev in addons, unless of course AMO does indeed intend to add mozdev extensions into its mechanism.. From silfreed at silfreed.net Mon Jun 2 12:05:29 2008 From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] Re-ordering template page title In-Reply-To: <200806022125.59668.atte.kemppila@iki.fi> References: <200806022125.59668.atte.kemppila@iki.fi> Message-ID: <200806021505.35276.silfreed@silfreed.net> On Monday 02 June 2008 14:25:59 Atte Kemppil? wrote: > Basically, I would like see template page title changed from "mozdev.org - > : " to ": - mozdev.org". I'd like to go a step farther and make the title go from most-specific to least-specific (essentially just reverse the order we currently have), to something like this: : - mozdev.org This would be the most bookmark-friendly as you could easily look to see "the installation page for project X" rather than "Project X's installation page". This would also be helpful when you have a bunch of tabs open for the same site as all the page names would show up in the tab (instead of "mozdev.org" or "project"). -Doug -- Douglas E. Warner Site Developer Mozdev.org http://www.mozdev.org From o.e.ekker at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 12:37:21 2008 From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:37:21 +0200 Subject: [Project_owners] Re-ordering template page title In-Reply-To: <200806022125.59668.atte.kemppila@iki.fi> References: <200806022125.59668.atte.kemppila@iki.fi> Message-ID: <48444BF1.4060404@gmail.com> Atte Kemppil? wrote: > I posted bug https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19219 and David > Boswell asked me to post here before any decisions are made. > > Basically, I would like see template page title changed from "mozdev.org - > : " to ": - mozdev.org". > > It would be more bookmark and google friendly. I remember reading some > convincing writings about this but can't find them right now. > > So, if your project is using templates, what do you think? > > The new Drupal pages don't seem to have mozdev.org in their title. Maybe it's better to also drop this for old template pages. The pages are clearly enough recognizable as mozdev.org, so I don't think it's neceassary to also add mozdev.org to the title. Reversing the order or putting mozdev.org at the end makes the order less logical to me, so I'd vote for removing it altogether. Onno From neil at parkwaycc.co.uk Tue Jun 3 02:03:57 2008 From: neil at parkwaycc.co.uk (Neil) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:03:57 +0100 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: alta88[nntp] wrote: > so AMO is hardcoded as the only such update source within Fx? No, it only hardcodes itself as the update.rdf source for all its downloads. From alta88 at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 06:49:45 2008 From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp]) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:49:45 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---On 2008.Jun.03 05:03 AM, Neil wrote: > alta88[nntp] wrote: > >> so AMO is hardcoded as the only such update source within Fx? > > No, it only hardcodes itself as the update.rdf source for all its > downloads. i'm still not clear. when Fx ckecks the update.rdf from mozdev, can it update-in-place the min/max versions if they change, like for AMO extensions? From silfreed at silfreed.net Tue Jun 3 06:57:37 2008 From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200806030957.39618.silfreed@silfreed.net> On Tuesday 03 June 2008 09:49:45 alta88[nntp] wrote: > i'm still not clear. ?when Fx ckecks the update.rdf from > mozdev, can it update-in-place the min/max versions if they > change, like for AMO extensions? Mozdev can't currently do this, no. -Doug -- Douglas E. Warner Site Developer Mozdev.org http://www.mozdev.org From alta88 at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 07:16:32 2008 From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp]) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:16:32 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---On 2008.Jun.03 09:57 AM, Douglas E. Warner wrote: > On Tuesday 03 June 2008 09:49:45 alta88[nntp] wrote: >> i'm still not clear. ?when Fx ckecks the update.rdf from >> mozdev, can it update-in-place the min/max versions if they >> change, like for AMO extensions? > > Mozdev can't currently do this, no. > > -Doug > yes that i know. can it be enhanced to do so is my question/request! or is this feature AMO-possible only? From silfreed at silfreed.net Tue Jun 3 07:38:26 2008 From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200806031038.28253.silfreed@silfreed.net> On Tuesday 03 June 2008 10:16:32 alta88[nntp] wrote: > yes that i know. ?can it be enhanced to do so is my > question/request! ?or is this feature AMO-possible only? Sure, we could look into this in the future. The file would probably still be statically generated, we would just use the user-provided versions rather than the ones in the install.rdf. Feel free to file a bug for it. -Doug -- Douglas E. Warner Site Developer Mozdev.org http://www.mozdev.org From o.e.ekker at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 10:42:42 2008 From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:42:42 +0200 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48458292.9050604@gmail.com> alta88[nntp] wrote: > > ---On 2008.Jun.03 09:57 AM, Douglas E. Warner wrote: > >> On Tuesday 03 June 2008 09:49:45 alta88[nntp] wrote: >> >>> i'm still not clear. ???when Fx ckecks the update.rdf from >>> mozdev, can it update-in-place the min/max versions if they >>> change, like for AMO extensions? >>> >> Mozdev can't currently do this, no. >> >> -Doug >> >> > > yes that i know. can it be enhanced to do so is my > question/request! or is this feature AMO-possible only? > What's the added value to do this for mozdev? Mozdev doesn't have a sandbox, so it is almost just as fast to update your extension's install.rdf/update.rdf and upload it as it is to change the max version on the server? Onno From silfreed at silfreed.net Tue Jun 3 10:52:00 2008 From: silfreed at silfreed.net (Douglas E. Warner) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: <48458292.9050604@gmail.com> References: <48458292.9050604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200806031352.01824.silfreed@silfreed.net> On Tuesday 03 June 2008 13:42:42 Onno Ekker wrote: > What's the added value to do this for mozdev? Mozdev doesn't have a > sandbox, so it is almost just as fast to update your extension's > install.rdf/update.rdf and upload it as it is to change the max version > on the server? You wouldn't have to wait for the file to propagate to the mirrors before re- releasing [in order to be nice to Mozdev]? Re-releasing the same file is a bit of a pain right now since you have to log back into the file management UI, verify your hash, and mark the file as released. -Doug -- Douglas E. Warner Site Developer Mozdev.org http://www.mozdev.org From o.e.ekker at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 11:04:50 2008 From: o.e.ekker at gmail.com (Onno Ekker) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:04:50 +0200 Subject: [Project_owners] XUL override Message-ID: <484587C2.706@gmail.com> Hi, My Forward add-on adds a popup menu to Thunderbird's Forward button. This works fine by itself, but not in combination with another extension that also adds a dropdown menu to the same button. When both add-ons are loaded, my menu doesn't show up. When I look at the DOM, I see two child nodes under toolbarbutton button-forward. First comes the other menupopup, with no id and then comes mine with id button-forwardpopup. Is there an easy way to merge these two menu's from XUL, when the other one doesn't have an id? And if it can't be done, how and where can I do this from javascript? Is there an easy way to detect if there are other menuitems from javascript, so I can insert a separator or something? Or always add a separator and hide it when there are no other menuitems? Onno From alta88 at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 11:37:43 2008 From: alta88 at gmail.com (alta88[nntp]) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Project_owners] some notes about file management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---On 2008.Jun.03 01:42 PM, Onno Ekker wrote: > alta88[nntp] wrote: >> >> ---On 2008.Jun.03 09:57 AM, Douglas E. Warner wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 03 June 2008 09:49:45 alta88[nntp] wrote: >>> >>>> i'm still not clear. ???when Fx ckecks the update.rdf from >>>> mozdev, can it update-in-place the min/max versions if they >>>> change, like for AMO extensions? >>>> >>> Mozdev can't currently do this, no. >>> >>> -Doug >>> >>> >> >> yes that i know. can it be enhanced to do so is my question/request! >> or is this feature AMO-possible only? >> > > What's the added value to do this for mozdev? Mozdev doesn't have a > sandbox, so it is almost just as fast to update your extension's > install.rdf/update.rdf and upload it as it is to change the max version > on the server? > > Onno what Doug said, plus the bandwidth saving of not unnecessarily re-downloading the entire extension. you turn out the lights when you leave the room, right? From mnenhy at tprac.de Tue Jun 3 12:24:42 2008 From: mnenhy at tprac.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karsten_D=FCsterloh?=) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Project_owners] XUL override In-Reply-To: <484587C2.706@gmail.com> References: <484587C2.706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48459A7A.5070100@mid.tprac.de> Onno Ekker aber hob zu reden an und schrieb: > Is there an easy way to merge these two menu's from XUL, when the other > one doesn't have an id? > And if it can't be done, how and where can I do this from javascript? Well, you can do it the evil way: - In your XUL file, specify a