ExtensionSettings that used to work don't
Categories
(Firefox :: Enterprise Policies, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: mkaply, Assigned: mkaply)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(3 external files)
We had a customer report that using "true" boolean value no longer works with the new schema.
Technically that's incorrect, but because of the way our parsing works, if there is an invalid boolean in ExtensionSettings (private_browsing) it throws out all of ExtensionSettings.
So
- We should allow "true" and "false" for booleans - common mistake,.
- We shouldn't throw out everything when one thing fails.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•2 months ago
|
||
[Tracking Requested - why for this release]: This is a major issue for this customer. Want to get this in ASAP.
Comment 2•2 months ago
|
||
Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 2044429
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•2 months ago
|
||
Updated•2 months ago
|
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 5•2 months ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
Comment 6•2 months ago
|
||
The patch landed in nightly and beta is affected, along with ESR.
:mkaply, is this bug important enough to require an uplift?
- If yes, please nominate the patch for beta and ESR approvals.
- See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Requesting_an_Uplift for documentation on how to request an uplift.
- If no, please set
status-firefox155and the ESR status flag(s) towontfix.
For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•2 months ago
|
||
Original Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D320759
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 8•2 months ago
|
||
firefox-beta Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined/Reason for urgency: We have reports from customers that existing policy is not working.
It's a mistake on their end, but we should handle it for compatibility. - Code covered by automated testing?: yes
- Fix verified in Nightly?: yes
- Needs manual QE testing?: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing:
- Risk associated with taking this patch: low
- Explanation of risk level: Very isolated. Only affects this one policy case.
- String changes made/needed?: None
- Is Android affected?: no
| Assignee | ||
Comment 9•2 months ago
|
||
Original Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D320759
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 10•2 months ago
|
||
firefox-esr153 Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined/Reason for urgency: We have reports from customers that existing policy is not working.
It's a mistake on their end, but we should handle it for compatibility. - Code covered by automated testing?: yes
- Fix verified in Nightly?: yes
- Needs manual QE testing?: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing:
- Risk associated with taking this patch: low
- Explanation of risk level: Very isolated. Only affects this one policy case.
- String changes made/needed?: None
- Is Android affected?: no
Updated•2 months ago
|
Updated•2 months ago
|
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 11•2 months ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•2 months ago
|
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 12•2 months ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•2 months ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Updated•2 months ago
|
Description
•