Re: Does anybody know how to modify the source code in order to log the executions of the JavaScript functions?

2015-01-26 Thread Tomasz
So summarizing, I will describe here all the necessary changes to be done in order to get my solution working. The produced log is as that: --- Mon Jan 26 19:13:15 2015 | GETTER: [Style], FILE: [http://static.gazeta.pl/i

Re: Please help test the new NPAPI plugin sandbox on Windows

2015-01-26 Thread Chris Peterson
You should probably file a new bug report so we can diagnose the problem. Some questions to answer in your bug report: Are all web pages blank or just one page with a Java applet? Is the blank page problem only reproducible when the NPAPI sandbox is enabled? AFAIK, the 32-bit and 64-bit Wind

Re: Does anybody know how to modify the source code in order to log the executions of the JavaScript functions?

2015-01-26 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 1/26/15 12:48 PM, Tomasz wrote: In what cases were the early-return cases actually hit? They correspond to things like out-of-memory conditions and should not have been getting hit... Here: cgThings.append(CGGeneric('if (!stack) {

Re: Does anybody know how to modify the source code in order to log the executions of the JavaScript functions?

2015-01-26 Thread Tomasz
> In what cases were the early-return cases actually hit? They correspond > to things like out-of-memory conditions and should not have been getting > hit... Here: cgThings.append(CGGeneric('if (!stack) { \n')) cgThin

Re: Does anybody know how to modify the source code in order to log the executions of the JavaScript functions?

2015-01-26 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 1/26/15 11:49 AM, Tomasz wrote: Using immediate returns from the functions was not a good solution as it was breaking functions where some operations were performed after our code In what cases were the early-return cases actually hit? They correspond to things like out-of-memory conditio

Re: Does anybody know how to modify the source code in order to log the executions of the JavaScript functions?

2015-01-26 Thread Tomasz
> Hmm. It's possible that stack came back null if the call into the > binding wasn't actually from script. Add a null-check (this part > _should_ end up with an indented block and all that). Well, I got my function working. Using immediate returns from the functions was not a good solution a

Re: Test Informant Report - Week ending Dec 28

2015-01-26 Thread Andrew Halberstadt
Yeah, you'll notice there's a week missing in between there :). That would be this report: http://brasstacks.mozilla.com/testreports/weekly/2014-12-19.informant-report.html Which you'll also notice is missing a lot of data (thus why I didn't post it to dev.platform). Basically I had a fd that w

Re: Test Informant Report - Week ending Jan 25

2015-01-26 Thread Andrew Halberstadt
Yes, that's correct, it includes both enabled/added or disabled/removed. I also agree that splitting these up would be useful. Should be doable, I'll file a bug. -Andrew On 26/01/15 10:40 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Test Informant wrote: --- marionette

Re: Test Informant Report - Week ending Dec 28

2015-01-26 Thread Gijs Kruitbosch
I was looking at these now... it looks like the mochitest-bc-e10s count went up from 48% in the week ending Dec. 12 to 57% in the week ending Dec. 28. Yet this report records no change since the previous run. What gives? :-) ~ Gijs On 29/12/2014 15:50, Test Informant wrote: Test Informant re

Re: Test Informant Report - Week ending Jan 25

2015-01-26 Thread Nathan Froyd
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Test Informant wrote: > --- > marionette- ↑0↓0 - 92% > mochitest-a11y- ↑0↓0 - 99% > mochitest-browser-chrome - ↑56↓12 - 95% > mochitest-browser-chrome-e10s - ↑24↓4 - 58% > mochitest-chrome - ↑16↓0 - 9

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc

2015-01-26 Thread Marco Zehe
Hi everyone, On 07.01.2015 12:19, I wrote: > Besides: It does give us a competitive advantage over other browsers in > the academic space and whereever other space longdesc may be used, or > start being used once it is officially sanctioned by the W3C. To reiterate: In certain areas like education

Test Informant Report - Week ending Jan 25

2015-01-26 Thread Test Informant
Test Informant report for 2015-01-25. State of test manifests at revision fa91879c8428. Using revision 6446c26b45f9 as a baseline for comparisons. Showing tests enabled or disabled between 2015-01-18 and 2015-01-25. 85% of tests across all suites and configurations are enabled. Summary ---

Re: Please help test the new NPAPI plugin sandbox on Windows

2015-01-26 Thread helpcrypto helpcrypto
...installed nightly64 and realized I don't have java 64 installed. Then installed nightly(32) and got a blank page instead of my lovely HTML (I see nothing) Is this normal? Shall I remove 64 versión? Something i could do? Perhaps open a new thread or file a bug? On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:43 AM

Re: Please help test the new NPAPI plugin sandbox on Windows

2015-01-26 Thread Chris Peterson
The NPAPI sandbox is off by default. The "dom.ipc.plugins.sandbox.flash" pref will only enable the sandbox for Flash. There is another pref, "dom.ipc.plugins.sandbox.default", that will enable the sandbox for all NPAPI plugins, including Java. I didn't mention the "default" pref because we want

Re: Please help test the new NPAPI plugin sandbox on Windows

2015-01-26 Thread helpcrypto helpcrypto
Do any of these affect NPAPI Java behaviour somehow? (ie: can it break applet running or privileges?) Thanks. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: > Bob Owen just landed a basic sandbox for Firefox's NPAPI plugin container > (bug 1123245) in Nightly 38. This NPAPI sandbox is o