Most of the new Print modal options are inaccessible on destination change if previously a print action was made using Foxit reader with the old modal
Categories
(Toolkit :: Printing, defect, P5)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr78 | --- | unaffected |
firefox84 | --- | wontfix |
firefox85 | --- | wontfix |
firefox86 | --- | wontfix |
People
(Reporter: asoncutean, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug, Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression, Whiteboard: [print2020][old-ui-])
Attachments
(3 files)
Affected versions
- 84.0b5
- 85.0a1 (2020-11-26)
Affected platforms
- Windows 7
Steps to reproduce
Preconditions:
- Have Foxit Reader installed with a version below 10 (on latest version the print to pdf function was removed, but some user will stick with the older ones for this functionality)
- Launch Firefox
- Have the print.tab_modal.enabled to false
- Print any page usimng Foxit reader option
- Set the print.tab_modal.enabled to true
- Ctrl + P on the same page
- Change the destination to any other option
Expected result
- The selected destination is set, the modal is active
Actual result
- step 5 - The print preview is totally grey
- step 6 - Most of the options turns inaccessible, except Destination, Margins and Cancel button
Regression range
- Not sure if this is a regression or not, it seems to reproduce intermittently on older builds, i’ve ended up with different pushlogs every time, but around 22/24 Oct; I will try asap to provide more relevant info here.
Additional notes
- If Foxit reader is not used previously with the old modal this issue is not reproducible
- The issue is reproducible only for the first changed destination, a second selection turns all the options active
- The preview is broken permanently for Foxit Reader destination on any page (completely grey), restarting the browser doesn’t fix it
Suggested severity
- S4
Updated•3 years ago
|
Updated•3 years ago
|
Updated•3 years ago
|
Comment 1•3 years ago
|
||
Can you attach the contents of about:support when you reproduce this? I'm curious what the preference values are when this happens.
Updated•3 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•3 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•3 years ago
|
||
Now I see that there is one paper size that triggers this issue and apparently is set as default when switching print.tab_modal.enabled back on.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•3 years ago
|
||
With paper size set to the one mentioned in comment 3 I've ended up with the following regression:
- Last good revision: 24648c48a49cc229f8839d19c22fb2626f767c82
- First bad revision: b32cb06ef2aeaa939af0484498fcbfd74db05790
- Pushlog:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/pushloghtml?fromchange=24648c48a49cc229f8839d19c22fb2626f767c82&tochange=b32cb06ef2aeaa939af0484498fcbfd74db05790
Updated•3 years ago
|
Comment 5•3 years ago
|
||
(Moving bugs to 86, part 1.)
Comment 6•3 years ago
|
||
Hi,
AS per comment 4 is it ok to udpate "has regression range" to yes?
Thanks!
Clara
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Clara Guerrero from comment #6)
Hi,
AS per comment 4 is it ok to udpate "has regression range" to yes?
Thanks!
Clara
Yes, I've missed that when I've provided the regression. Thank you!
Comment 8•3 years ago
|
||
Sorry about the delay here.
I've managed to reproduce this, it seems that the Foxit PDF driver returns a custom (ID 256) paper size that is 1mm x 1mm in its paper list.
Normally it has an empty name so we reject it at [1], but occasionally it has a fairly corrupt one, which we don't reject.
It's not clear to me why this then causes options to become inaccessible.
mstriemer - perhaps you might have ideas there?
Maybe we should revisit the validation again and maybe reject anything less than 5mm (50) at [1] and at [2].
[1] https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/014fe72eaba26dcf6082fb9bbaf208f97a38594e/widget/windows/nsPrinterWin.cpp#291
[2] https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/014fe72eaba26dcf6082fb9bbaf208f97a38594e/widget/nsPrintSettingsService.cpp#331-333
Updated•3 years ago
|
Updated•3 years ago
|
Updated•3 years ago
|
Updated•3 years ago
|
Comment 9•2 years ago
|
||
I suspect this is fixed by bug 1756169 (in that the form should be usable now). Not quite a dupe since we could ignore this paper size, but it seems like it should also fix the issue.
Description
•