MozillaZine


Support for promises within IndexedDB

Discussion of features in Seamonkey
wapsi
 
Posts: 5
Joined: March 25th, 2021, 10:49 pm

Post Posted March 25th, 2021, 11:48 pm

Little background: I noticed that I was unable to use Microsoft Teams web (teams.microsoft.com) on SeaMonkey (or more precise: it works in Private mode but not in normal mode; in normal mode the web page stops loading after login and eventually Teams throws an error: "We're sorry - we've run into an issue"). I did some troubleshooting and found that it could be related to some problems with the IndexedDB feature Teams is using and eventually I found that Teams started to work properly from Firefox 60 onwards. And from Firefox 60 changelog I found that they addded support for promises within IndexedDB (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... eleases/60) and it looks like SeaMonkey is missing the support for that even it's based on Firefox 60 codebase, am I right?

So I tested to backport couple of patches which implemented support for promises wihtin IndexedDB in Firefox 60:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406922
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1193394
and then compiled the SeaMonkey and indeed, Teams works just fine now on normal browsing mode now (and not only in Private mode). And I assume that the Microsoft Teams web is not the only site on the Internet that uses that missing feature.

So is it possible officially implement support for promises within IndexedDB in SeaMonkey? I uploaded my PoC backported patch for SeaMonkey 2.53.6 here: http://wapsi.kapsi.fi/seamonkey_2.53.6_ ... patch.diff

PS. I'm using and initally wanted to use only the chatting capability of Teams, not the video/audio calls. I think they are not working because Teams web supports only Chrome based browsers with them.

wapsi
 
Posts: 5
Joined: March 25th, 2021, 10:49 pm

Post Posted March 26th, 2021, 1:50 am

BTW: I think this example can be used to verify if promises within IndexedDB works or not: https://jsfiddle.net/8v6syfca/

frg
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Post Posted March 26th, 2021, 4:16 pm

Getting it in should be no problem. I had bug 1193394 on the radar but seeing the dependencies didn't do it yet.

Where we need to get it in is rebased patch parts of the orginal bug. See some examples here:
https://www.wg9s.com/comm-253/patches/s ... e/patches/

e.g. Bug 256180 has 4 parts corresponding to the orginal 4 checkins for the bug.

We are still using mercurial for the backporting were this is much easer but if you have separate git patches this wouldn't be a problem either. Files names and headers are not a problem. Can take them from the orginal patch but no merged together patch from more than or bug or more than one part.

FRG

Return to SeaMonkey Features


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest