I've merged your changes.
> While doing this I came to wonder whether the version check was not broken
again: the page asks for 1.0 minimum while it's 0.92 that is on AMO and the
extension set 'data-extension="up-to-date"' on the page.
Not sure if I understand correctly. I set the extension-version to 1.0 on
web page and the installed extension version was 0.92. Extension correctly
sets the variable 'document.documentElement.dataset.extension' to
'outdated' in this case.
> So could you replace that duplicated code with a message like you tried
to do originally in 412cb50?
I've moved the logic to website. The extension now sends message and
website then shows 'Verification' view.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:46 PM, sajolida <sajolida@???> wrote:
> Uzair Farooq:
> > The repo url you mentioned says 'No repo found':
> > https://git-tails.immerda.ch/verification-extension
>
> As noted in the email where I asked you this originally and which I
> linked to from my second request on the topic:
>
> « Note that this URL doesn't work in a browser but does work through
> Git. »
>
> Please try:
>
> $ git remote add upstream \
> https://git-tails.immerda.ch/verification-extension
> $ git fetch upstream
>
> >> I also see that you initially tried to implement this with a message
> >> in 412cb50 and I would much prefer this approach. What made you change
> >> your mind between 412cb50 and 80773cb?
> >
> > Yeah, I originally planned to do it in web app but then noticed this
> > comment in web app 'This should be done by the extension instead' and
> > thought you want this in the extension.
>
> I removed this comment on the website a while ago (249e6f2153 from
> November 7) after you first implemented the "up-to-date" vs "outdated"
> logic. It was related to displaying whether the extension as already
> installed (up-to-date or outdated).
>
> The issue I'm talking about here is that, once the extension is
> installed, the next step is not displayed automatically.
>
> So could you replace that duplicated code with a message like you tried
> to do originally in 412cb50? What made you change you mind right after
> that commit?
>
> Also, you're not answering to my concerns about the "up-to-date" vs
> "outdated" logic being broken again. See:
>
> https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-dev/2017-November/011867.html
>
> And just to be extra explicit: since Tuesday, people who are running
> Firefox 57, can't download Tails anymore because we're not finished with
> this work.
>
> I completely acknowledge that we have been slow and overwhelmed on our
> side (on the technical mentoring of your work, on our own work on the
> rest of the website, etc.) but if we have had a good enough version of
> the extension on Tuesday, we would have made a first release of the new
> download page on our website. But I think that the two issues mentioned
> here are still blockers: 1. the page not updating once the extension is
> installed, 2. the "up-to-date" vs "outdated" logic which seems broken
> again.
>
> So I'd like you to move a bit faster now, please.
>
