search

mcauer / browserscope

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/browserscope
Apache License 2.0
0 stars 0 forks source link

Browserscope.org says I’m running seamonkey-2.2.4 when I’m running seamonkey-2.24. #349

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
We thought you were using the browser:
SeaMonkey 2.2.4

You are really using the browser:
SeaMonkey 2.24

http://www.browserscope.org/ua

Browser UA string: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 Lightning/2.6.4
JS UA string: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24

result:
Family: SeaMonkey
v1: 2
v2: 2
v3: 4

expected:
Family: SeaMonkey
v1: 2
v2: 24

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ohnobinki on 12 Feb 2014 at 8:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Curious how you added this issue - was it from JSPerf?

Original comment by els...@gmail.com on 12 Feb 2014 at 8:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
From the “New issue” link on this page. I then chose the “UA Parsing Is 
Incorrect” template. The Summary is autocompleted by my local browser because 
I typed it into the summary <input/> once at 
http://code.google.com/p/browserscope/issues/detail?id=349 which I filed after 
following your (now gone) “No?” link from jsperf’s website.

Original comment by ohnobinki on 12 Feb 2014 at 8:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
So if the link is gone from JSPerf, then most people would never end up doing 
what you just did right?
I'm not going to field UA parsing bugs most likely - it's a bummer, but I'll 
just update to the latest regexes like I'm doing every month, and otherwise 
ignore bugs here.

Original comment by els...@gmail.com on 12 Feb 2014 at 9:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Maybe you could add back the “No?” link but just point to a (new) entry in 
your FAQ about how to report the issue to ua-parser and how you pull in the 
regexes once every month. I guess I should go file a bug of my own at their 
github issue tracker then? ;-)

Original comment by ohnobinki on 12 Feb 2014 at 9:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
In comment #2, I meant to link to 
http://code.google.com/p/ua-parser/issues/detail?id=511.

Original comment by ohnobinki on 12 Feb 2014 at 10:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I think I may do that at some point, but for right now I'm going to just waffle 
it - I can't guaranty that someone hitting a bug on my end is hitting a valid 
bug in ua-parser on github.

Original comment by els...@gmail.com on 12 Feb 2014 at 10:47