Re: PSA: Phabricator silently drops the content of binary files on Windows
On Monday, 1 October 2018 11:07:18 UTC-4, Mark Côté wrote: > On Saturday, 29 September 2018 21:59:48 UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 9/29/18 11:31 AM, tom...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Our modern roadmap is almost entirely driven by paying customers, and no > > > customers have expressed interest in this. > > > > Are we a paying customer? > > Yes we are. I'll file an upstream ticket and update the related bug. FYI, as noted in the bug, this should be fixed now. You will need to upgrade Arcanist to pull down the fix (which was also merged to our git-cinnabar fork). Mark ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Pointer Events Level 2
The Security and privacy considerations section reads like this: [intro] [paragraph saying the web page gets new information users would normally consider confidential] [details about the type of new information that is now exposed] [discussion about how this can be used to profile/bucket/fingerprint/track the user] [suggestion that UAs may degrade things for these reasons] Beyond these considerations, the working group believes that this specification: Does not expose personally-identifiable information. ... Does not expose any other data to an origin that it doesn’t currently have access to. ... Does not allow an origin access to other devices. Isn't that a bit disingenuous? Like saying I was convicted of a crime in 1999, but other than that I have never been convicted of a crime? I don't have a github issue for this. I don't have substantive concerns with the security/privacy sections, I just think editorially it's almost misleading. -tom On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:38 AM L. David Baron wrote: > > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of > W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final > stage of being a W3C Recomendation: > > Pointer Events Level 2 > https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents2/ > https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/ > Deadline for responses: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 (TOMORROW! SORRY!) > > If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the > review, please say so in this thread. Ideally, such comments should > link to github issues filed against the specification. (I'd note, > however, that there have been previous opportunities to make > comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues > for the first time at this stage.) > > (I'm not sure to what extent we implement the revisions that are in > level 2. Knowing that would be helpful. If it's something we > implement, then we should probably explicitly support it unless we > have a good reason to do otherwise.) > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. >- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Announcing new test platform "Android 7.0 x86"
This should be running GeckoView in e10s mode. We only support one child
process right now, but we may try to increase that soonish. Resource
consumption is a big concern. The parent process is shared with the host
application right now, but we would like to split that out as well.
James
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:00 PM Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> Thanks a lot, this is great news!
>
> What's the process model configuration for this testing platform? Do
> these tests run in single process mode or are they running in some e10s
> like environment? Is there some documentation that explains what runs in
> which process?
>
> Thanks,
> Ehsan
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:44 PM Geoffrey Brown wrote:
>
>> This week some familiar tier 1 test suites began running on a new test
>> platform labelled "Android 7.0 x86" on treeherder. Only a few test suites
>> are running so far; more are planned.
>>
>> Like the existing "Android 4.2" and "Android 4.3" test platforms, these
>> tests run in an Android emulator running in a docker container (the same
>> Ubuntu-based image used for linux64 tests). The new platform runs an x86
>> emulator using kvm acceleration, enabling tests to run much, much faster
>> than on the older platforms. As a bonus, the new platform uses Android 7.0
>> ("Nougat", API 24) - more modern, more relevant.
>>
>> This test platform was added to support geckoview testing. Tests run in
>> the
>> geckoview-based TestRunnerActivity (not Firefox for Android).
>>
>> To reproduce the main elements of this test environment locally:
>> - build for Android x86 (mozconfig with --target=i686-linux-android)
>> - 'mach android-emulator' or explicitly 'mach android-emulator --version
>> x86-7.0'
>> - install the geckoview androidTest apk
>> - run your test command using --app to specify the geckoview test app,
>> something like 'mach mochitest ... --app=org.mozilla.geckoview.test'
>>
>> Great thanks to the many people who have helped enable this test platform,
>> especially :wcosta for help with taskcluster and :jchen for investigating
>> test failures.
>> ___
>> dev-platform mailing list
>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>>
>
>
> --
> Ehsan
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to implement and ship: Unprefix -moz-user-select, unship mozilla-specific values.
On 11/11/2018 17:57, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: web-platform-tests: Test coverage for all the values is pre-existing. There's unfortunately little coverage in WPT, but a lot in our selection and contenteditable tests. Can we upstream some of these tests to wpt? I don't know if there are/were technical barriers that would prevent us doing that, but if user gestures are required, the new testdriver APIs might fill the gap, and if there is some other piece of missing functionality I would be interested to know what that is. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Intent to implement: Reporting API
*Summary*: Reporting API allows the page to receive notifications such as the usage of deprecated APIs and FeaturePolicy violations. I decided to implement this API, because it is required in the web-platform-tests for FeaturePolicy. Reporting API covers 2 different features: a. reporting to the current page, via ReportingObserver b. reporting to a remote server, known via 'report-to' HTTP header. My implementation covers only the first aspect. However I also have patches for the second part, not in review yet. *Bug*: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1492036 *Link to standard*: https://w3c.github.io/reporting/ *Platform coverage*: everywhere. *Estimated or target release*: unknown yet. *Preference behind which this will be implemented*: dom.reporting.enabled *Is this feature enabled by default in sandboxed iframes?* yes. The reports are per contexts. (but not for workers or worklets yet. See https://github.com/w3c/reporting/issues/131 *DevTools bug*: no supports for devtools. I don't think we need to do anything for devtools. *Do other browser engines implement this?* Chrome shipped it in 69: https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/4672626140119040 No other browsers. *web-platform-tests*: https://wpt.fyi/results/feature-policy/reporting?aligned&label=stable https://wpt.fyi/results/reporting?aligned&label=stable ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
