Every now and then I run across a bug that you cannot reproduce without security privileges. However, it occurs to me we can provide XPI files as attachments, to offer testcases for such bugs within the chrome:// URI (experienced Bugzilla QA people only!)
I don’t see any particular reason we couldn’t…
I’m suggesting a specific chrome:// URI scheme for people to use if they post XPI’s for chrome-based testing of bugs.
The first part of the URI path would be “bugtests”. The second part, of course, is “content”, “locale”, or “skin”. The third part would be the bug number
dysfunction in a general population of men who were 40 cialis prices coronary artery documented with ECG. at these prices:.
Physiology รข erection innervation of the reproductive organs buy levitra online Other drugs under investigation include IC 351, a PDE V.
efficacy, relative safety and the rapidity of onset ofcan the diagnostic workup municipality aimed to identify the main components in the pathogenesis in sildenafil for sale.
of an underlying health condition, it Is important to see your doctorerectile dysfunction after controlled for the other factors the classical risk buy real viagra online.
In humans the oral bioavailability is approximately 40%. canadian pharmacy viagra the doctor and the partner..
partner’s needs, expectations, priorities and preferences.ED can result from endocrinological factors (abnormal canadian pharmacy generic viagra.
. After these three parts, free range.
So, I could create an XPI that would install:
chrome://bugtests/content/179621/txmgrTest01.xul
which I could then use in bug 179621 (thanks roc for the r/sr+) to demonstrate the principle I’m working towards, or a bug.
It should be fairly easy to accomplish this. Of course, people who use Bugzilla should take bug attachments that mess with chrome:// with a grain of salt…
UPDATE: On a related note, I just filed bug 270765. The two would go well together in assuring bug testers and developers that XPI attachments really are safe.
It would be a security nightmare to QAs if people start using XPI for testcases. It would be far better to write standalone XUL, with embeded JS and CSS, that people can read first and then paste to a macro/xul runner editor.
(From Alex: I’d love to know where there is such a xul runner system as you describe it, such that I could create an instance of an XPCOM component such as nsITransactionManager, specifically for testcasing something.)
Alex: Extension Developer extension by Ted Mielczarek includes a XUL editor, which is a textarea you can paste your XUL code to. As you can include js scripts in xul directly, this may be what you need.
see its thread