Re: AdBlock Plus as a ServiceWorker?
I thought that the APIs we brought into Firefox by implementing Tracking Protection were supposed to provide a better (canonical?) way to hook your own blocker into Firefox. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: AdBlock Plus as a ServiceWorker?
On 08/05/15 19:42, Frederik Braun wrote: I thought that the APIs we brought into Firefox by implementing Tracking Protection were supposed to provide a better (canonical?) way to hook your own blocker into Firefox. Yes, as long as they're willing to stand up a server [1] that serves their lists in a different format [2]. Francois [1] https://github.com/mozilla-services/shavar [2] https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/developers_guide_v2 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Xcode project generation, feedback requested
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1063329 If anyone is using Xcode for Gecko development could you try the patches in the bug above and add feedback? Run with: mach build-backend -b xcode It should compile (but not link) and provide the usual IDE editing features: - full navigation: files/functions/callers etc., - full code completion, - predictive compilation errors/warnings Current issues: - The project is missing many of the 3rd party libs; I plan to fix that at some point - It compiles a duplicate set of object files to mach; no plans to fix that - Doesn't link; no plans to address that, admittedly switching to the command line to `mach build` the real binaries may confuse new users. - Only has built-in debugging target for `firefox` main process -as opposed to also having one for `plugin-container`- and this may confuse new users. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposal to alter the coding style to not require the usage of 'virtual' where 'override' is used
On 05/07/2015 02:53 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: The warning that you are proposing to fix here is -Woverloaded-virtual. [EDIT: karl meant to say -Winconsistent-missing-override] At least once we can build with this warning enabled, I recommend making this warning fatal instead of covering over it by adding an override annotation that the author may have never intended. Semi-tangent, to correct one premise here: Good news -- we already *can do* build with this warning (-Winconsistent-missing-override) enabled, and it's fatal in FAIL_ON_WARNINGS directories which is most of the tree. bug 1117034 tracks a lot of the fixes for that. You just need clang 3.6 or newer to get this warning, and our official TreeHerder clang builders have an older version, so they don't report this warning. As a result, we get a few new instances checked in per week -- but I've been catching those locally (since they bust my build) and I've been fixing them as they crop up. (But anyway, as ehsan replied separately, his proposed coding style change isn't about fixing instances of this build warning.) /semi-tangent ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Intent to remove SpecialPowers from Marionette
We are removing SpecialPowers from Marionette, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1149618. This means Marionette tests will no longer be able to use SpecialPowers to gain access to a privileged context. As part of this effort, I'm adapting all Marionette tests in mozilla-central and gaia, including B2G WebAPI tests and gaiatest. Other users of Marionette and SpecialPowers should plan to manage the change themselves, but if you need assistance, please comment in bug 1149618. Jonathan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
