Oxymoronical

It’s been quite some time since I last worked on my prototype XPCOM component/interface viewer and I have to face facts, it’s likely to be quite some time till I do again. I haven’t even had time to update it with the data from the latest 1.9.2 and trunk interfaces. Since I’m not likely to go anywhere else with this I’d love for someone else who thinks it is worthwhile to pick it up and run with it. I’ve just done a final commit adding a README on how to use the code (though I’m sure it is lacking in key ways so be prepared to have to experiment a bit) and the full source is available in my hg repository. The code is MPL tri-licensed so you should just be able to fork and go do your own thing. I should be able to answer any questions and would love to see it get finished and really usable somewhere.

I’ve just rolled out a small update to the interface cross reference, nothing major, just fixing a few bugs and I’ve put up what looks like the final set of interfaces for 1.9.1b2.

I’ve now figured out the best way to gather the interface lists and so the cross reference now includes all interfaces used in all 3 major platforms of Firefox. It is relatively simple for me to add the interfaces for other applications now but this got me thinking about what kind of uses people are making of this and how the multi-OS, multi-app interfaces should be presented. A few ideas came to mind:

• App developers probably just want to see the interfaces in their app, either only those that appear for all operating systems or those for a specific OS in some cases.
• Add-on developers probably want to see some kind of shared set of interfaces (what you might call gecko/toolkit) that appear for all apps they are targeting, unfortunately this changes depending on the set of apps. Again they probably want for all OS or for a specific OS.
• Maybe I shouldn’t even bother doing anything and just include a note in the interface display about where the interface actually exists.

I’m sure other people have other ideas of how it might work, any suggestions?

I forgot to add to my last post some information about what I currently had in mind to improve about the API reference I’ve been working on. Any further suggestions people have are very welcome, but here is the current few ideas I have.

Currently it only indexes Firefox and Gecko interfaces, in fact it only indexes those used by an OSX build of Firefox. It would be nice to be able to index interfaces for all the main applications and for all the platforms. There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly I’d want the UI to work so people viewing it could select what set of interfaces they wanted to see. Secondly actually building the lists of interfaces for each application and OS is going to be pretty tricky I think. So far I’ve resorted to building Firefox then looking in dist/idl. This works but it is time consuming. Possibly I might be able to come up with some clever nonsense to make the build system only compile idls but we’ll see.

It would be nice to be able to include a list of the component contract ids available in the platform and what interfaces they implement. This is I think pretty difficult to do just by parsing the source files. Potentially a little extension could run in the app and do some looking through Components.classes to find this out. One issue here though is there is no way to tell whether components are services or not so instantiating them is potentially problematic. This is a problem that could be solved by brute force, or maybe doing a special instrumented build.

So those are my main two ideas, if anyone has any suggestions on how to make those tasks easier or for other things that should be there then shout them out.

Faaborg has started a discussion on the newsgroups on the relative importance of polish and blocker bugs (I’d provide a link bug Google Groups seems to be refusing to acknowledge existence of the post). I have been for quite some time now very focused on the in-depth blocker issues, partly because that is where all the interesting work is for me, but also because I think it makes more sense for me or one of the other guys with good understandings of how the extension manager works to be making these changes rather than throwing others in at the deep end.

This has of course left little time for me to fix the trivial issues that Faaborg talks about. The things that users probably notice more and make the product look complete or half-done. This is why I’m really pleased that when I posted a list of simple bugs that anyone should be able to tackle there was a fairly good response. Of the 12 bugs on the original list, 9 have been fixed. I wanted to extend my thanks to those guys that took the time to work on those, some of them probably ended up being a little harder work than anticipated.

Of course the polish list is almost never ending. I’ve been adding more to the list of good first bugs, if anyone is interested in helping out then don’t be afraid to just email me or find me on IRC as Mossop and ask how much work something really involves.

I was very excited to learn at the Firefox Summit that Rob Strong was handing over ownership of the Extension Manager module to me. He did great work making the extension manager what it is today but has lately had to be more focused on Installer and windows integration issues.

Last week I spent a large part of my time trying to get myself up to speed on all the old filed bugs, clearing out things that clearly aren’t going to happen and trying to consolidate others. In particular I made the effort to go over every single unconfirmed bug and either resolve as appropriate or request any additional information from the reporter. It is rather sad that many of these were issues that noone commented in after the initial report or even worse the reporter responded with additional information but people (including me) dropped the ball and nothing further happened.

This big triage has been quite useful. Firstly the number of unconfirmed bugs for the add-ons manager has dropped from the mid 70s to under 30 (I would give you exact figures and pretty graphs but bugzilla’s charting is broken). I expect it to drop even further next week when I resolve the issues where the reporter is no longer responding to bugmail. Secondly it has allowed me to spot a pattern amongst 6 or so filed bugs which strongly suggests a new issue that can break add-on installations. While I have yet to be able to reproduce it in a test environment I certainly have more information to go on than previously.

Finally I have been marking all the trivial little issues that I think we could fix, but are unlikely to be priorities. These are the kinds of things that if you were interested in helping out and getting started in developing for Mozilla you could start out on. Many will end up being a few lines of patch, just need to figure out where to put it and test it.

So if you are interested in tackling any of these please give it a go. You can find me on IRC (for reasons best left alone I appear as Mossop) or by email if you need any guidance on getting started. I’m going to try to keep this list updated as I find new bugs that fit there, I still have yet to go through all of the 263 confirmed bugs, maybe a job for next week.