Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: satrow

pintorama
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 31
Joined: 2018-01-20, 23:46

Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by pintorama » 2019-02-13, 00:00

Brief is an RSS feed extension. The proper version for Basilisk, and included in Classic Add-on Archives is 2.4.0. It has worked flawlessly since I migrated to Basilisk. What happens, with the new version of Basilisk, is that it removes the icon that appears at the top, with all the other active icons or, if you have it, the add-on bar at the bottom. Thus, you can not see your feeds, even though the feeds are still loading. I have tried various ways to preserve the icon, bring it down into "customize" feature, so I can then bring it back up after installing the new version. I've tried reinstalling Brief. Nothing seems to work. This is a vital extension for me so I hope this can be fixed. The icon is needed for user functionality of Brief. I am going to have to stay with the old version until this is resolved. Thanks.

coffeebreak
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1855
Joined: 2015-09-26, 04:51
Location: U.S.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by coffeebreak » 2019-02-13, 01:41

Brief 2.4.0 is a hybrid xul/webextension, that could be why it broke, given this.

But the toolbar button shows up fine in Brief 2.3.0,
which is in CAA on Brief's versions page: caa:addon/brief/versions

pintorama
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 31
Joined: 2018-01-20, 23:46

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by pintorama » 2019-02-13, 02:05

I actually thought about this possibility after I posted. If you look at the Brief version history, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/ , 2.5.4 was released on Nov. 25, 2017 and, as stated, it is compatible with web extensions. So, I think that's part of the problem. At the same time, this version worked flawlessly with other version of Basilisk until the web extensions experiment was abandoned and, apparently, unwound somehow. I guess the question becomes: Can this be addressed in some fashion, or is this the way things are going to be, many/all hybrid extensions, not exclusively brief, are likely to not function, in some manner, now that the change has been made?

User avatar
Nigaikaze
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1110
Joined: 2014-02-02, 22:15
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by Nigaikaze » 2019-02-13, 02:48

pintorama wrote:Can this be addressed in some fashion, or is this the way things are going to be, many/all hybrid extensions, not exclusively brief, are likely to not function, in some manner, now that the change has been made?
This is the way things are going to be, for the reasons in the link that coffeebreak posted.

The only fashion in which to address this (in this specific case) would be for someone to fork Brief and apply whatever features/fixes were added between 2.4.0 and 2.3.0 without adding any of the WebExtension code.
Nichi nichi kore ko jitsu = Every day is a good day.

pintorama
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 31
Joined: 2018-01-20, 23:46

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by pintorama » 2019-02-13, 03:24

I figured this would be the answer. I will wait to see if Moonchild pops in, to offer any sense of reassurance that this could be worked out at the Basilisk level, as this problem is affecting more than one extensions already. If nothing positive seems on the horizon, with genuine and great reluctance, because I feel this is a terrific project, with great people, I will have to leave Basilisk for Waterfox, which does not display this problem.

User avatar
Nigaikaze
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1110
Joined: 2014-02-02, 22:15
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by Nigaikaze » 2019-02-13, 03:36

pintorama wrote:I will wait to see if Moonchild pops in, to offer any sense of reassurance that this could be worked out at the Basilisk level
Moonchild wrote:[Removing WebExtension support] is not a decision that was made lightly, and won't be reconsidered.
Source: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p161691
Nichi nichi kore ko jitsu = Every day is a good day.

coffeebreak
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1855
Joined: 2015-09-26, 04:51
Location: U.S.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by coffeebreak » 2019-02-13, 03:53

pintorama wrote:is this the way things are going to be, many/all hybrid extensions, not exclusively brief, are likely to not function, in some manner, now that the change has been made?

I don't know if every hybrid extension will have problems, but my gut guess is that it will depend on the extension.


Returning to the original issue...
coffeebreak wrote:But the toolbar button shows up fine in Brief 2.3.0,
which is in CAA on Brief's versions page: caa:addon/brief/versions
Have you tried Brief 2.3.0, as recommended?

The release notes for v2.4.0 (see CAA, Brief's versions page) indicate that all changes from v2.3.0 to v2.4.0 were merely preparation for the transition to webextensions - i.e. no fixes or improvements to v2.4.0, therefore none lost by rolling back a version. Please consider trying it.

pintorama
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 31
Joined: 2018-01-20, 23:46

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by pintorama » 2019-02-13, 04:39

I will give 2.3 a try tomorrow. I didn't understand what coffeebreak meant by caa:addon/brief/versions and then how to get there. I imagine it is likely to work I'll let you know.

coffeebreak
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1855
Joined: 2015-09-26, 04:51
Location: U.S.

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by coffeebreak » 2019-02-13, 04:57

pintorama wrote:I didn't understand what coffeebreak meant by caa:addon/brief/versions and then how to get there.
It's an internal link in the Classic Add-ons Archive (CAA).

It can be accessed if the extension is installed (which I thought it was, since you referred to it in your original post and seemed familiar with its contents).

You might want to read here, the paragraph under the heading "Secondly, check the archives".

User avatar
Nigaikaze
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1110
Joined: 2014-02-02, 22:15
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by Nigaikaze » 2019-02-13, 13:55

You can also find Brief 2.3.0 here:

http://legacycollector.org/firefox-addo ... index.html
Nichi nichi kore ko jitsu = Every day is a good day.

pintorama
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 31
Joined: 2018-01-20, 23:46

Re: Brief Extension Incompatible With New Version

Unread post by pintorama » 2019-02-13, 18:04

Brief 2.30, does in fact work and brings back full functionality. Thanks to all. A overarching comment, made in the spirit of contribution, not criticism. I am completely confident the decision to abandon the WebExtensions experiment was not reached lightly. I'd expect nothing less from this development team. But when it comes to hybrid WebExtensions, like Brief, my central question is this: Is the lack of functionality of hybrid extensions something that was anticipated or something that has turned out to be an unintended consequence? If it is the former, then this was considered in the deliberation process. If it is the latter, perhaps revisiting the topic of hybrid extensions should be considered.

Locked