Re: Intent to ship: Visual Viewport API on Android

[David Burns]

Not yet as we are stabilising tests for gecko view but hopefully soon!

David
On May 10, 2019, 7:22 PM +0100, Botond Ballo , wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:50 AM David Burns  wrote:
> > There are a number of wpt that fail only in firefox. Are we planning on 
> > fixing those tests with this work?
>
> We are, at least on Android. (On desktop, some of the tests need
> desktop zooming, which we do not yet have, to pass.) A number of fixes
> have landed [1] yesterday.
>
> Is there a way to get a dashboard view similar to [2] with Android results?
>
> Thanks,
> Botond
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1477610
> [2] 
> https://jgraham.github.io/wptdash/?bugComponent=core%3A%3Alayout=%2Fvisual-viewport=Interop+Comparison
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

[Chris Peterson]

Hello, UA string fans! I propose that Firefox's UA string on Windows and 
Linux omit the browser and OS architectures to reduce UA fingerprinting 
entropy (and save a few header bytes).


I have tentative thumbs up from some webcompat and privacy people, but 
as there is no official module owner for User-Agent string at this time, 
I wanted to get some wider feedback here.


The primary use case for including OS architecture (Win32, Win64) and 
version in the UA string is to allow software download sites to offer 
compatible software. A second use case I've heard is for websites to 
workaround platform bugs or serve a page design to match the OS theme, 
but I have not seen real examples of this.


The UA string on Windows and Linux currently reveals both the browser 
and OS architectures:


* 32-bit Firefox on 32-bit OS: "Windows", "Linux i686" or armv7l
* 32-bit Firefox on 64-bit OS: "WOW64", "Linux i686 on x86_64"
* 64-bit Firefox on 64-bit OS: "Win64", "Linux x86_64" or aarch64

I propose that Win64 and WOW64 use the unadorned Windows UA already used 
by Firefox on x86 and AArch64 Windows:


< "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/66.0"

> "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/66.0"

And that Linux omit the OS architecture entirely (like Firefox on 
Android or always spoof "i686" if an architecture token is needed for UA 
parsing webcompat):


< "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/66.0"

> "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/66.0"

If a software download site doesn't see "Win64" or "WOW64" in the UA 
string, it might serve a Win32 x86 executable to a Win64 OS user. The 
x86 executable would still be compatible, just not optimal. (Firefox and 
Chrome don't have this problem because they ship smart stub installers.) 
Linux users are unlikely to download much software from sites that sniff 
their OS architecture, so omitting it should be safe.


If a site *really* wants to detect the client's browser or OS 
architecture, it can use Flash APIs or detect known differences between 
Firefox's 32-bit and 64-bit JavaScript Math functions [1].


If we think allowing software download sites to sniff and serve Win64 
executables is important, we can include the OS architecture but omit 
the browser architecture (i.e. report "Win64" instead of "WOW64"). Sites 
don't need to know whether the user is running a x86 or x86_64 browser 
on their Win64 OS.


I propose no change to the macOS UA string at this time. Removing 
"Intel" now would not reduce any fingerprinting entropy (all modern Macs 
are x86_64) and might risk confusing some UA string parsers. If AArch64 
MacBooks become a real platform, I propose we then remove "Intel" so 
x86_64 and AArch64 macOS would have the same UA string:


< "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/66.0"
> "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Mac OS X 10.14; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/66.0".


Here is a spreadsheet comparing UA strings of different browser and OS 
architectures:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I--o6uYWUkBw05IP964Ee2aZCf67P9E3TxpuDawH4_I/edit#gid=0


[1] https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js/issues/657
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: Visual Viewport API on Android

[Botond Ballo]

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:50 AM David Burns  wrote:
> There are a number of wpt that fail only in firefox. Are we planning on 
> fixing those tests with this work?

We are, at least on Android. (On desktop, some of the tests need
desktop zooming, which we do not yet have, to pass.) A number of fixes
have landed [1] yesterday.

Is there a way to get a dashboard view similar to [2] with Android results?

Thanks,
Botond

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1477610
[2] 
https://jgraham.github.io/wptdash/?bugComponent=core%3A%3Alayout=%2Fvisual-viewport=Interop+Comparison
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Fwd: Changes to about:telemetry -- Now With Processes!

[Chris Hutten-Czapski]

Hello!

about:telemetry, the UI that allows you to browse current and historical
Telemetry data in Firefox, is changing slightly. Starting with bug 1437446
(presently on autoland) it will default to showing you the Telemetry
collected in all process types (previously it would show only the "current"
process' data, which was confusing to users).

This means you no longer need to use the drop-down at the top-right near
the search bar to select the process you're interested in, _and_ search
will comb through all probes in all processes by default.

(that drop-down now controls which "store" of data you're viewing.)

This is all thanks to contributor :dalc who took this design across the
finish line. Thank you :dalc!

If you find any bugs, please file them as usual in Toolkit::Telemetry.

:chutten
Firefox Telemetry Team
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform