v128 #1847
v128 #1847
Conversation
> serviceWorkers require an "Allow" permission I made this change as part of v103 (after we finally migrated off lifetime cookie policy), but I cannot for the life of me work out why I mentioned SWers needing an allow permission - there is no such thing in ctrl-I or under privacy> permissions. (I checked ESR102, and current) If anyone can enlighten me, speak up
thanks copypasta
some pref numbers have multiple prefs
it was rolled back
Maybe. That is true, but it has nothing to do with sanitizing. I went back thru previous versions of arkenfox and this sentence is just weird and left hanging with no context. There's nowhere you can add exceptions for SWers (at least not anymore if ever). I know I put it in for a reason, but it's lost in space-time. I'm ignoring PB mode which currently doesn't have SWers but is also it's own little sanitizing machine.
you can start a review by commenting on a line in the commit |
Okay it's probably 1fc4357#diff-417e8f625f16252f8ace3b0791d24c9b073d7394e9216c7b5d14a516d2572277L830-L833.
Thanks. |
|
Ok, that rings a bell. I remember testing this. sharedWorkers pref was removed which is why that's gone from the recent versions. I need to think about exactly what this means now, I'm still slightly confused over what exactly I was testing and what I meant |
Since I'm not going to support using this pref, there's no need for me to monitor this config - also see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1881993#c48 - that said, I still think there are gaps, but IDFC :)
|
also, are you going to add the deprecated/removed prefs to prefs cleaner or that is not necessary? additional question: in the deprecated/removed section, shouldn't |
deprecated/removed prefs are in the user.js - therefore they are already covered by prefsCleaner
the entire section is commented out, but users can flip the section, e.g. if they use ESR |
|
this PR is fucked - i can't resolve the conflict that doesn't fucking exist |
No description provided.