Support for AVM FRITZ!Box router's UI with new router firmware

[Gordon-Dry]

Since the AVM FRITZ!Box routers get the latest firmware 7.50 they claim not supporting outdated browsers anymore:

[Gittyperson]

Related:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=28995

https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1240

[martok]

The original issue is solved, but since I've had the chance to play with an updated Fritzbox a few weeks ago and that doesn't alert on unsupported browsers, but instead just doesn't display the login window:

They now have the exact same buggy polyfill as #74. PM has everything they need, but their feature test code is buggy, which causes it to inject a Promise polyfill that doesn't contain Promise.any(). I've been trying to debug that for a few hours, but that didn't go anywhere other than increase my hate of Webpack.

[martok]

Resolved as UXP#2436 by implementing one more Promise feature. Should be in the next release.

[Vangelis66]

@martok : Apologies for this OT, but I don't have an account in

https://repo.palemoon.org/

or

https://forum.palemoon.org/

to "properly" notify you; as the owner of this repo, you're free to DELETE this OT comment of mine after the needed info gets to you 😜 ...

Resolved as UXP#2436

Well, UXP#2436 necessitated the implementation of UXP#2435; UXP#2435 itself required resolving UXP#2240, but that last one caused regressions/crashes described in UXP#2452 ...

The consensus among MCP devs is so far that these crashes are confined to the use of the legacy (XUL) version of the NoScript extension in UXP-based browsers; Moonchild would have closed UXP#2452 as a wontfix, but testimony has arisen from the roytam1 fork users that at least one site is able to crash the browser (with #2240 merged in) without ever having the NS extension installed:

https://www.theregister.com/

You can read more here (MSFN) and here (PMForums); as is the case for many years, Moonchild is reluctant to accept any bug reports from the forks community 😞 ...

I see you have prepared UXP#2459 to tackle UXP#2452:

The last commit specifically fixes a reentrancy crash issue in XUL extensions (NoScript, namely). The IDB cleanup event timing is technically wrong then, but ABL, eMatrix and Palefill all don't trip that code path, so it should very rarely be reached at all.

Well, can you replicate a crash in xul.dll when visiting https://www.theregister.com/ with #2240 merged in and, if yes, does #2459 cure that?

The point of this OT post is that #2240-related crashes aren't uniquely tied to "evil" NoScript 😉 ...

Thanks again for all you have contributed thus far to the UXP-platform communities and more thanks for continuing to do so ❤️ ...

Kind regards.

[martok]

TIL: people can mark their own comments as off-topic.

Well, can you replicate a crash in xul.dll when visiting https://www.theregister.com/ with #2240 merged in and, if yes, does #2459 alleviate that?

No crash with or without #2459.

[Gordon-Dry]

I don't see a proper solution.

I see the login screen with only the input field for the userid, but as there is no input field for the password no usability is gained.

Edit: or do you refer to the next release of Pale Moon?

[Gittyperson]

"Next release" is clearly mentioned two posts above. That would be Pale Moon 33.

[Gordon-Dry]

@Gittyperson I read the post. I did not ask you. And you did not get the fact that it's not 100% clear so I asked. Asking is not a crime. So fuck off with your passive agressive selfish bullshit of kinda playing the moderator with a shitty attitude towards users who ask.

[Gittyperson]

Wow.

[martok]

This is not a kind of tone I will tolerate on my issue tracker. Gordon-Dry has been blocked from further posts.

---

The answer was in fact correct. Next release of UXP means next release of Pale Moon.