After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 525910 - Greasemonkey doesn't seem to be working at all with XULRunner based Epiphany
Greasemonkey doesn't seem to be working at all with XULRunner based Epiphany
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: epiphany-extensions
Classification: Deprecated
Component: greasemonkey
2.22.x
Other All
: Normal major
: ---
Assigned To: epiphany-extensions-maint
epiphany-extensions-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2008-04-03 07:34 UTC by Matěj Cepl
Modified: 2008-05-23 21:18 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.21/2.22


Attachments
record of the gdb session (39.33 KB, text/plain)
2008-04-03 21:12 UTC, Matěj Cepl
Details

Description Matěj Cepl 2008-04-03 07:34:43 UTC
Please describe the problem:
Greasemonkey already installed scripts which worked in the pre-XULRunner Epiphany just doesn't seem to be even activated. Installation of them from scratch ends with "Failed" in the loading progress dialog. What's wrong?

Steps to reproduce:
1. go to the webpage where Greasemonkey script used to be activated
2. 
3. 


Actual results:
nothing (i.e., no new buttons are present)

Expected results:
the same as before

Does this happen every time?
yes

Other information:
Comment 1 Christian Persch 2008-04-03 12:08:57 UTC
Hmm. Either the dom-content-loaded signal isn't getting sent to the extension, or mozilla_evaluate_js in extensions/greasemonkey/mozilla/mozilla-helpers.cpp returns FALSE, in which case we'd need to know where exactly it fails.
Comment 2 Matěj Cepl 2008-04-03 14:40:48 UTC
would strace help?
Comment 3 Christian Persch 2008-04-03 14:43:36 UTC
No, but stepping through mozilla_evaluate_js in gdb.
Comment 4 Matěj Cepl 2008-04-03 20:44:25 UTC
Could you enlighten me how to do it?
Comment 5 Matěj Cepl 2008-04-03 21:12:20 UTC
Created attachment 108570 [details]
record of the gdb session

DOes this make any sense?
Comment 6 Christian Persch 2008-04-03 21:19:38 UTC
Not much... Does mozilla_evaluate_js go through to the end to return TRUE, or does it return FALSE, and if so, from which line of code?
Comment 7 Matěj Cepl 2008-04-04 05:17:40 UTC
May I very politely and (hopefully) non-agressively ask — does it work for you? And if I really have to find out, could you tell me which commands I should enter into  gdb? I spent an hour or more to produce attachment 108570 [details] and I don’t how much it would take to answer your question.
Comment 8 Christian Persch 2008-05-23 21:18:01 UTC
I think this is fixed in svn on the gnome-2-22 branch. Please re-open only if you can reproduce this with the latest from svn.