Re: Re-visiting the DOM tree depth limit in layout

2017-09-12 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > Chrome limits the DOM at 513 deep (where the root element is one > deep), Safari likewise but doesn't paint anything. Edge appears to > have no limit, so that TC simply hangs in an infinite loop (presumably > it will

Re: indexedDB.open failing silently?

2017-09-12 Thread Jan Varga
I just tried to simulate the problem with newer/older firefox, but with given code snippet I get an error event instead of "undefined" It's probably something else ... On 12/09/17 15:56, Ben Kelly wrote: Can you have the user try in a fresh profile? I think this behavior might occur if they

indexedDB.open failing silently?

2017-09-12 Thread Geoff
I'm trying to help some users of my extension with a problem. Unfortunately I can only offer suggestions of things to try and then wait for a reply. I asked one to put this code in the web console and tell me what happened: try { var request = indexedDB.open('thisIsATest', 1);

Re: Re-visiting the DOM tree depth limit in layout

2017-09-12 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > I'm rather unhappy about the prospect of having to examine another > browser's HTML parser beyond reading the spec in order to achieve > interop. :-( Fortunately, not too complicated:

Re: Intent to unship: Visibility of window.content to untrusted code

2017-09-12 Thread Emilio Cobos Álvarez
Just for the record, since I got curious and I saw no mention in the intent email: I've noticed that this may be used pretty easily for UA detection. So far [1] is the only remotely related thing I've found from a search on Google and GitHub (outside of the firefox codebase ofc). I suspect

Intent to unship: Visibility of window.content to untrusted code

2017-09-12 Thread Boris Zbarsky
Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864845 window.content is a Gecko-specific thing that basically acts like window.top in untrusted code. In chrome it returns the currently selected tab, effectively. I would like to unship window.content for 57; no one else implements it.

Re: Intent to unship: Visibility of window.content to untrusted code

2017-09-12 Thread Kohei Yoshino
A similar story: `window.controllers` was removed with Firefox 29 but added back to Firefox 30 because it had been widely used for UA detection. `window.content` might cause the same compatibility issue, but anyway, it's difficult to guess the impact from GitHub search results...

Re: Intent to unship: Visibility of window.content to untrusted code

2017-09-12 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/12/17 5:04 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: I've noticed that this may be used pretty easily for UA detection. Right, that and use in Gecko-only codepaths are the main concerns I considered adding a usecounter, but as you noted it would be affected by window enumeration. We could

Re: indexedDB.open failing silently?

2017-09-12 Thread Ben Kelly
Can you have the user try in a fresh profile? I think this behavior might occur if they used a profile in a newer version of firefox (like nightly 57) and then try to take it back to an older version (like release 55). Database schemas can be updated in various storage APIs on disk which prevent

Re: Intermittent oranges and when to disable the related test case - a simplified policy

2017-09-12 Thread James Graham
On 12/09/17 14:55, Andrew Halberstadt wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:33 PM Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: I don't think so, that data already exists and is query-able from ActiveData:

Re: Intermittent oranges and when to disable the related test case - a simplified policy

2017-09-12 Thread Andrew Halberstadt
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:33 PM Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < > ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> I don't think so, that data already exists and is query-able from >> ActiveData: >>

Re: indexedDB.open failing silently?

2017-09-12 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/12/17 5:57 AM, Geoff wrote: What they got instead was: undefined. I actually can't think of a way this could happen... This surely must mean that indexedDB.open is failing but not throwing an exception. Failing in what sense? There _is_ a concept of "uncatchable exception" in Gecko,

Re: Intermittent oranges and when to disable the related test case - a simplified policy

2017-09-12 Thread Steve Fink
On 9/12/17 7:02 AM, James Graham wrote: On 12/09/17 14:55, Andrew Halberstadt wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:33 PM Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: I don't think so, that data already