Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Post Reply
User avatar
RobertJ
Moderator
Posts: 10880
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by RobertJ »

The add-on claims to have two options:

Image

Problem is that only the This add-on no longer works option is there!

HOW COULD MOZILLA RELEASE SUCH A PIECE OF GARBAGE :!:

I know that this is not Mozilla; however, there appears no direct way to tell them that their add-on doesn't work (they apparently don't read the reviews for it) and I feel better after a rant :wink:
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
User avatar
BigWillyStyle42
Posts: 694
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 4:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by BigWillyStyle42 »

It seems to depend on the add-on. For some I get both, but for others I get only the not working option.
User avatar
RobertJ
Moderator
Posts: 10880
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by RobertJ »

Interesting, for Add-on Compatibility Reporter

I only get the not working option. I guess that makes sense since it isn't working. Maybe that's a good way to report it :D
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
rjohnson19
Posts: 79
Joined: October 24th, 2009, 3:58 pm

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by rjohnson19 »

It only lets you report "This add-on still works" for add-ons not set as compatible with whatever Firefox version you are using.
User avatar
BigWillyStyle42
Posts: 694
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 4:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by BigWillyStyle42 »

rjohnson19 wrote:It only lets you report "This add-on still works" for add-ons not set as compatible with whatever Firefox version you are using.

That makes sense, good to know what the logic is there.
User avatar
RobertJ
Moderator
Posts: 10880
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by RobertJ »

rjohnson19 wrote:It only lets you report "This add-on still works" for add-ons not set as compatible with whatever Firefox version you are using.


Unfortunately if you "forced" compatibility using something like Nightly Tester Tools before you "found" this add-on, you can't use it.
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
wiiwaker
Posts: 53
Joined: March 19th, 2009, 8:46 am

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by wiiwaker »

RobertJ wrote:
rjohnson19 wrote:It only lets you report "This add-on still works" for add-ons not set as compatible with whatever Firefox version you are using.


Unfortunately if you "forced" compatibility using something like Nightly Tester Tools before you "found" this add-on, you can't use it.


Then that's not fault of moziila or this add-on :D
User avatar
RobertJ
Moderator
Posts: 10880
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by RobertJ »

Then that's not fault of moziila or this add-on


Fault is such a harsh work. Why don't we simply call it a lack of foresight in the software requirements document for the add-on (I'm not naive, I know they didn't have one.). You know the thing that is supposed to anticipate that not all users are mind readers and look at all possible actions by users using beta's since they generally are aware of things like Nightly Tester Tools being used to test developmental software to insure that the add-on covers all these advanced users. :-"
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
wiiwaker
Posts: 53
Joined: March 19th, 2009, 8:46 am

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by wiiwaker »

Problem is NTT and this add-on do the same thing, although they do it in different ways. You know installing two add-ons doing the same thing always breaks Firefox ](*,)
As to the compatibility options, it confused me at first and needs a little of logic to understand.
User avatar
RobertJ
Moderator
Posts: 10880
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by RobertJ »

This add-on simply sets extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6 and other versions to false. I don't know exactly what NTT does when you hit the Force button. Do you and can you "unforce" it by doing some editing of the profile?
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
User avatar
RobertJ
Moderator
Posts: 10880
Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by RobertJ »

With FF 3.6b5 released I didn't force compatibility and was able to use Add-on Compatibility Reporter to let them :roll: know that six of my add-ons work perfectly.

  • Autofill Forms 0.9.5.2
  • Favicon Picker 3 0.5
  • MR Tech About:About 2.4
  • Tamper Data 10.1.0
  • User Agent Switcher 0.7.2
  • Web Developer 1.1.8

Another add-on I use, CookieCuller 1.3.1, had issues with the packaging; so, I repackaged it and submitted it as a new add-on CookieCuller - Updated 1.3.1.1 in case anyone was interested (giving full credit to the original developer). Currently in the sandbox.

Hopefully someone is listening. [-o<
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
ratman
Posts: 119
Joined: May 27th, 2003, 9:37 am

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by ratman »

The add-on compatibility reporter appears to no longer be compatible with Firefox 4.0b7pre, which creates an odd kind of recursive add-on incompatibility issue. Is there a way to get this updated for the latest builds?
this sig
is not
three lines long.
Pillum
Posts: 126
Joined: June 26th, 2010, 2:42 pm

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by Pillum »

yes, change the maxversion in the .xpi or add a bool pref 'extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0b' = true in about:config
bomfog
Posts: 455
Joined: November 7th, 2002, 3:22 pm
Location: the palouse, SE. WA, USA

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by bomfog »

Pillum wrote:add a bool pref 'extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0b' = true in about:config

ITYM "false"?
Pillum
Posts: 126
Joined: June 26th, 2010, 2:42 pm

Re: Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Post by Pillum »

yep, i meant false :)
Post Reply