1:41 p.m.
Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck.
So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind.
Tried to go to this site: http://app.fsbcardprocessing.co.uk
Netsurf pops up a warning about SSL security certificate, offering two
choices: Reject or Accept.
Click either button, Netsurf crashes.
Here's my log:
www.abbeypress.net/TEMP/NSbug-log-140925.zip (4K)
Netsurf 3.2 (freshly launched, by the way) on Iyonix 5.18.
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
|| See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
3:38 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep:
Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck.
So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind.
Sorted out the Mantis login problem, thanks to Vince Sanders.
So I duly logged in and filled in a formal bug report; clicked Submit.
Mantis response (I paraphrase from memory):
Invalid report. Netsurf build number required.
I had said Netsurf 3.2.
So I click "go back".
And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again.
Grrrrr.
Well, I've already reported the bug here on this mailinglist, so that
will have to do. Life is becoming short.
Another lesson, I guess, in hindsight-wisdom: in future I shall
always click a Submit button with Adjust rather than with Select.
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
|| See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
3:48 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep:
> Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck.
> So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind.
Sorted out the Mantis login problem, thanks to Vince Sanders.
So I duly logged in and filled in a formal bug report; clicked Submit.
Mantis response (I paraphrase from memory):
Invalid report. Netsurf build number required.
I had said Netsurf 3.2.
Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ?
So I click "go back".
And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again.
Grrrrr.
This is a problem with NetSurf, not the bug tracker. Modern browsers
annotate history information with form data. We have a plan to do that
too.
B.
4:01 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
Rob Kendrick wrote on 25 Sep:
Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ?
The former. Is Mantis not robust enough to cope with both?
But upon doublechecking my iconbar, I find I'm wrong. I'm using "3.1
(Dev Cl #1718)" on this Iyonix. Must be one of my other machines
where I have 3.2 -- will check.
> So I click "go back".
> And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again.
> Grrrrr.
This is a problem with NetSurf, not the bug tracker. Modern
browsers
annotate history information with form data. We have a plan to do that
too.
Glad to hear that.
This is first time I've used Mantis. Submitted occasional bug report
in the past on Sourceforge (which was not always straightforward,
using Netsurf; I think I recall that that's why you switched).
Info expected by Mantis in some fields was not obvious.
Is the best course then to leave such fields blank and just make sure
the freeform fields include all relevant info?
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
|| See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
4:07 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:01:14PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
Rob Kendrick wrote on 25 Sep:
> Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ?
The former. Is Mantis not robust enough to cope with both?
It's robust in the sense that it detected you gave it nonsense rather
than inserting inconsistent data into the database.
But upon doublechecking my iconbar, I find I'm wrong. I'm
using "3.1
(Dev Cl #1718)" on this Iyonix. Must be one of my other machines
where I have 3.2 -- will check.
When you see Dev CI (not CL) versions, you'll want to mention this
number, too.
Info expected by Mantis in some fields was not obvious.
Is the best course then to leave such fields blank and just make sure
the freeform fields include all relevant info?
If in doubt, provide more information. Yes, opening the submit button
in a new window is probably the best way to go about using it.
B.
4:50 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On 25 Sep 2014, Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
> Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep:
[snip]
> I had said Netsurf 3.2.
Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ?
'Product version' leads to a drop-down menu, which doesn't contain the
latest version, ie 3.2 is present, but 3.3 is absent. It is thus not
possible to enter the current version. Fortunately, Mantis doesn't seem
to care about this, and the field can be left blank.
'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#' should be
omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an error.
Tony
6:11 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep:
'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the
'#' should be
omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an error.
Is "robust" the right word when I say I think software should be
robust enough to anticipate such variations in user input and quietly
take the bits it wants.
(A pet peeve along this line is software that wants a bank-card
number or a phone number and won't allow the user to type the spaces
or hyphens or parentheses with which such long numbers are always
printed on plastic cards or on paper in order to make them
human-readable and human-checkable.)
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
|| See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
6:36 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 05:11:27PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep:
> 'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#'
should be
> omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an error.
Is "robust" the right word when I say I think software should be
robust enough to anticipate such variations in user input and quietly
take the bits it wants.
No, that's not robustness, that's telepathy. No matter how many filters
or functions or pattern matches you attempt (each with its own list of
maintenance requirements and bugs), somebody on netsurf-user will still
end up asking why it refuses "Net Surf Version Three small dot thing 2".
B.
6:44 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On 25 Sep 2014, Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
[snip]
... somebody on netsurf-user will still end up asking why it refuses
"Net Surf Version Three small dot thing 2".
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
Douglas Adams
Tony
6:36 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On 25 Sep 2014, Jim Nagel <netsurf(a)abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep:
> 'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that
the '#' should
> be omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an
> error.
Is "robust" the right word when I say I think software should be
robust enough to anticipate such variations in user input and quietly
take the bits it wants.
Tolerant?
Tony
11:30 a.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
The following bytes were arranged on 25 Sep 2014 by Rob Kendrick :
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
> So I click "go back".
> And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again.
> Grrrrr.
This is a problem with NetSurf, not the bug tracker. Modern browsers
annotate history information with form data. We have a plan to do that
too.
I would venture to suggest that it is more a problem with the bug
tracker. The correct response to invalid input in a form is to display
the form again, with the input the user just submitted, and the
offending fields highlighted and annotated, not to redirect to a blank
(and uninformative) error page and rely on a convenience feature in the
browser to prevent the user's data from being summarily deleted. You
need not look very far on the modern web to see examples of this in
action. For example, most forums will do it for you.
--
__<^>__ === RISC OS is a work of art. Some people adore it, ===
/ _ _ \ === others can't see the point of it, and it's really ===
( ( |_| ) ) === expensive. ===
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ===================
12:51 p.m.
New subject: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On 27/09/14 10:30, Martin Bazley wrote:
The correct response to invalid input in a form is to display
the form again, with the input the user just submitted, and the
offending fields highlighted and annotated, not to redirect to a blank
(and uninformative) error page and rely on a convenience feature in the
browser to prevent the user's data from being summarily deleted.
You could make the feature request to the Mantis developers. Anyway,
this is way off topic for here.
--
Michael Drake http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
3349
days inactive
3351
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Jim Nagel -
Martin Bazley -
Michael Drake -
Rob Kendrick -
Tony Moore