MozillaZine

Search icons gone after update to FF68

User Help for Mozilla Firefox
tomri
 
Posts: 36
Joined: November 18th, 2004, 3:30 am

Post Posted July 19th, 2019, 5:01 am

Bad luck: after restarting FF one more time; the same 3 out of 12 icons were gone again. I then restored an old version of search.json.mozlz4 from a backup. On first start, all icons there; on second start: the same 3 icons gone again. So it if FF who removes them. I'm giving up for now and hope for upstream to change their code, maybe they fix it just accidentally. ;-)

Diorser

User avatar
 
Posts: 960
Joined: June 22nd, 2005, 6:57 am

Post Posted July 20th, 2019, 5:55 am

The root cause with lost extension icons seems to be that some extension do not embed their icon, but looking for an external icon.
Example for language pack: looking for https://addons.cdn.mozilla.net/static/i ... ult-32.png

When the icon is lost, the solution is to download the icon for example in the extension folder and edit extensions.json by replacing
https://addons.cdn.mozilla.net/static/i ... ult-32.png by default-32.png.

There is something wrong with these lost icons.
The rule should be that Search engines or extensions should include their icons, instead of looking for external icons.

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 4600
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted July 20th, 2019, 7:37 am

if you speak about the plugin symbol - please wait until firefox 69, the issue is resolved.
i use my own extensions and dictionary and those had no icon until beta 5. regular installations have a symbol and is loaded from amo itself.

Diorser

User avatar
 
Posts: 960
Joined: June 22nd, 2005, 6:57 am

Post Posted July 20th, 2019, 12:19 pm

I don't expect to use Fx69.
Will stick to 68 ESR, because Fx69 will have his own new bugs which will be fixed in Fx70, and so on and so on.

The reasonable rule would really be to request the extension icons to be integrated in the xpi file because it is simply ridiculous to request a network connection to get an icon for a local file.
Never have had this problem before.

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 4600
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted July 20th, 2019, 2:03 pm

lol funny dude using a security hole, good luck and better answer next time.

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27644
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted July 20th, 2019, 2:11 pm

Diorser wrote:I don't expect to use Fx69.
Will stick to 68 ESR, because Fx69 will have his own new bugs which will be fixed in Fx70, and so on and so on.

But what if Fx 68.0 has bugs that was fixed in Fx 69.0

ESR only gets security and allowed stability fixes that keeps it stable. So even if they could fix a issue(s) in 68 ESR they may not until 69.0 and on.

Diorser

User avatar
 
Posts: 960
Joined: June 22nd, 2005, 6:57 am

Post Posted July 20th, 2019, 10:55 pm

James wrote:But what if Fx 68.0 has bugs that was fixed in Fx 69.0
ESR only gets security and allowed stability fixes that keeps it stable. .

Debian stable is currently using Firefox ESR 60.8.
If estimated mature enough, the next one should be 68 ESR, i believe may be in October.
Let's hope Linux packagers are clever enough to identify what should be solved before releasing next ESR.
https://www.mozilla.org/media/img/firef ... 8f2dd1.png

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 20061
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted July 22nd, 2019, 5:29 am

Security hole or not, he is correct that there is no longer stability in "releases".
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27644
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted July 22nd, 2019, 2:05 pm

therube wrote:he is correct that there is no longer stability in "releases".

No I did not say that.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 20061
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted July 23rd, 2019, 1:51 pm

(Diorser alluded to Quantum being in a perpetual state of BUG. Brummelchen mentioned the security aspect [due to not updating].)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

jscher2000

User avatar
 
Posts: 10743
Joined: December 19th, 2004, 12:26 am
Location: Silicon Valley, CA USA

Post Posted July 23rd, 2019, 3:24 pm

Diorser wrote:The root cause with lost extension icons seems to be that some extension do not embed their icon, but looking for an external icon. ... The rule should be that Search engines or extensions should include their icons, instead of looking for external icons.

Each of the XPI's for the built-in search engine extensions in Firefox 68 includes a favicon.ico file. The search.json.mozl4 file has a moz-extension:// link to that file, instead of importing the data of the icon. That introduces some fragility.

A moz-extension:// path may become obsolete if the internal unique ID of the extension changes.

I was testing a policy file to "uninstall" search engine plugins (thread) and that could be one reason that all of the icons were blanked out in a test profile even after removing the policy and seeing the search engines return. Hiding search.json.mozlz4 and letting Firefox regenerate the file solved it, and the paths changed to reflect the current internal IDs.

Old Bing icon path: moz-extension://06efe612-ba53-411c-8836-2bec914add4f/favicon.ico

New Bing icon path: moz-extension://4b8dd75f-e83c-4e68-b31a-de2674d6af0f/favicon.ico

(I have a page I use to decompress the file: https://www.jeffersonscher.com/ffu/searchjson.html)

However, I don't know what would trigger an internal ID change under normal circumstances. Firefox probably should check for that around startup.

Diorser

User avatar
 
Posts: 960
Joined: June 22nd, 2005, 6:57 am

Post Posted July 23rd, 2019, 3:54 pm

Anyway, I don't lose the icons anymore for some days. Not sure of the chronology, due to different Fx releases / new profiles.
I have seen some time ago 2 icon lines in search.json.mozlz4, then confusing.
"_iconURL":
"_icon":

Now I see only "_iconURL": with icon converted in "_iconURL": .... " , then correct.

dickvl

User avatar
 
Posts: 52840
Joined: July 18th, 2005, 3:25 am

Post Posted July 23rd, 2019, 7:31 pm

If you disable an extension then it loses its GUID and a new GUID is generated when you enable the extension.
That is also why there was dataloss when extensions got disabled due to the expired intermediate certificate.

I don't think that disabling search engines via policies.json is supported.
Normally you hide search engines by excluding them from "visibleDefaultEngines" set as you can see in lists.json
resource://search-extensions/
resource://search-extensions/list.json

Return to Firefox Support


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests