bug about SSL security certificate
Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck. So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind. Tried to go to this site: http://app.fsbcardprocessing.co.uk Netsurf pops up a warning about SSL security certificate, offering two choices: Reject or Accept. Click either button, Netsurf crashes. Here's my log: www.abbeypress.net/TEMP/NSbug-log-140925.zip (4K) Netsurf 3.2 (freshly launched, by the way) on Iyonix 5.18. -- Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk || See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep: > Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck. > So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind. Sorted out the Mantis login problem, thanks to Vince Sanders. So I duly logged in and filled in a formal bug report; clicked Submit. Mantis response (I paraphrase from memory): Invalid report. Netsurf build number required. I had said Netsurf 3.2. So I click "go back". And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again. Gr. Well, I've already reported the bug here on this mailinglist, so that will have to do. Life is becoming short. Another lesson, I guess, in hindsight-wisdom: in future I shall always click a Submit button with Adjust rather than with Select. -- Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk || See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote: > Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep: > > Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck. > > So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind. > > > Sorted out the Mantis login problem, thanks to Vince Sanders. > So I duly logged in and filled in a formal bug report; clicked Submit. > Mantis response (I paraphrase from memory): > Invalid report. Netsurf build number required. > I had said Netsurf 3.2. Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ? > So I click "go back". > And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again. > Gr. This is a problem with NetSurf, not the bug tracker. Modern browsers annotate history information with form data. We have a plan to do that too. B.
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
Rob Kendrick wrote on 25 Sep: > Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ? The former. Is Mantis not robust enough to cope with both? But upon doublechecking my iconbar, I find I'm wrong. I'm using "3.1 (Dev Cl #1718)" on this Iyonix. Must be one of my other machines where I have 3.2 -- will check. >> So I click "go back". >> And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again. >> Gr. > This is a problem with NetSurf, not the bug tracker. Modern browsers > annotate history information with form data. We have a plan to do that > too. Glad to hear that. This is first time I've used Mantis. Submitted occasional bug report in the past on Sourceforge (which was not always straightforward, using Netsurf; I think I recall that that's why you switched). Info expected by Mantis in some fields was not obvious. Is the best course then to leave such fields blank and just make sure the freeform fields include all relevant info? -- Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk || See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:01:14PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote: > Rob Kendrick wrote on 25 Sep: > > Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ? > > The former. Is Mantis not robust enough to cope with both? It's robust in the sense that it detected you gave it nonsense rather than inserting inconsistent data into the database. > But upon doublechecking my iconbar, I find I'm wrong. I'm using "3.1 > (Dev Cl #1718)" on this Iyonix. Must be one of my other machines > where I have 3.2 -- will check. When you see Dev CI (not CL) versions, you'll want to mention this number, too. > Info expected by Mantis in some fields was not obvious. > Is the best course then to leave such fields blank and just make sure > the freeform fields include all relevant info? If in doubt, provide more information. Yes, opening the submit button in a new window is probably the best way to go about using it. B.
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On 25 Sep 2014, Rob Kendrick wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote: > > Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep: [snip] > > I had said Netsurf 3.2. > > Did you say "Netsurf 3.2" or "3.2" ? 'Product version' leads to a drop-down menu, which doesn't contain the latest version, ie 3.2 is present, but 3.3 is absent. It is thus not possible to enter the current version. Fortunately, Mantis doesn't seem to care about this, and the field can be left blank. 'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#' should be omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an error. Tony
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep: > 'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#' should be > omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an error. Is "robust" the right word when I say I think software should be robust enough to anticipate such variations in user input and quietly take the bits it wants. (A pet peeve along this line is software that wants a bank-card number or a phone number and won't allow the user to type the spaces or hyphens or parentheses with which such long numbers are always printed on plastic cards or on paper in order to make them human-readable and human-checkable.) -- Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk || See you at the show? www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk Oct 25
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 05:11:27PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote: > Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep: > > 'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#' should be > > omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an error. > > Is "robust" the right word when I say I think software should be > robust enough to anticipate such variations in user input and quietly > take the bits it wants. No, that's not robustness, that's telepathy. No matter how many filters or functions or pattern matches you attempt (each with its own list of maintenance requirements and bugs), somebody on netsurf-user will still end up asking why it refuses "Net Surf Version Three small dot thing 2". B.
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On 25 Sep 2014, Jim Nagel wrote: > Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep: > > 'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#' should > > be omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an > > error. > > Is "robust" the right word when I say I think software should be > robust enough to anticipate such variations in user input and quietly > take the bits it wants. Tolerant? Tony
Re: boxconvert
In article <35e23c4c54@abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel wrote: > What means the "boxconvert" error that Netsurf 3.2 gives for this > site? http://glastonbury.bocabar.co.uk/ > (Using Ro 5.18 on Iyonix). It was broken this morning, now it is mended. NetSurf 3.3 (Dev CI #2123) -- _ Brian Jordan Virtual RPC-AdjustSA on Windows 8.1 Pro RISC OS 6.20 _ --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: bug about SSL security certificate -- Mantis grrrr
On 25 Sep 2014, Rob Kendrick wrote: [snip] > ... somebody on netsurf-user will still end up asking why it refuses > "Net Surf Version Three small dot thing 2". A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams Tony
Date stamps on resources such as !Cache
I've previously reported that I've experienced problems at boot with !Cache on my ARMini (RO5.20). I've therefore installed it in Utilities.Caution and have got a work-round that stops the problems. I've just downloaded NetSurf build #2123 dated 25 Sep. The copy of !Cache in the !Boot.Resources directory has a date stamp of 16 Sep 2014. It appears to be identical to the version I have installed dated 09 June 2014. I will be happy to install an updated version of !Cache, especially if the problem I have happens to be solved. In the meantime I would appreciate it if the datestamps could be preserved so it doesn't appear to be updated. Regards Andrew -- Andrew Pinder
