Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FFX4 AOM: Cannot choose order of items #1180

Closed
arantius opened this issue Sep 3, 2010 · 10 comments
Closed

FFX4 AOM: Cannot choose order of items #1180

arantius opened this issue Sep 3, 2010 · 10 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@arantius
Copy link
Collaborator

arantius commented Sep 3, 2010

In the Firefox4 Add-ons Manager, it's impossible to re-order the items in the list. They are sorted by name only.

This is a platform thing we might not be able to overcome. I've reached out to someone at Mozilla, but not yet heard back.

@sizzlemctwizzle
Copy link
Contributor

This is a platform thing we might not be able to overcome.
Couldn't we get dirty and go straight for the XUL in this case? We could overlay about:addons.

@arantius
Copy link
Collaborator Author

arantius commented Sep 3, 2010

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=565610
Perhaps. I hadn't actually realized that bug was fixed, until now. I'd hate to re-implement from scratch, when we're provided with an API to extend the add-ons manager. Hopefully it can be made to work the way we need it to.

@sizzlemctwizzle
Copy link
Contributor

I'd hate to re-implement from scratch, when we're provided with an API to extend the add-ons manager.
I hope we can avoid re-implementing this but I'm pretty sure we will have to overlay the manager to complete #1182.

@erikvold
Copy link
Contributor

erikvold commented Sep 5, 2010

This is a platform thing we might not be able to overcome. I've reached out to someone at Mozilla, but not yet heard back.

Maybe we should open a bug for this? (they can always mark it notfixing)

@arantius
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm not quite proud of it, but I've started some work to address this:

http://github.com/arantius/greasemonkey/compare/greasemonkey:master...execution-order

As of this moment, it adds an "execution order" sort option. Providing the ability to alter the execution order (and see it updated) is next. I'd really love feedback on this code, especially if you can find a better/cleaner way to accomplish the same goal.

@sizzlemctwizzle
Copy link
Contributor

especially if you can find a better/cleaner way to accomplish the same goal.
Yeah I was looking into this the other night. The best fix imo would be to add our own sort type to the internal code, that way we could let the existing code sort the list. I'll see if I can get this working.

@arantius
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Unfortunately it's implemented as an XBL binding, and I don't know how, or if it's even possible, to customize an existing binding.

@sizzlemctwizzle
Copy link
Contributor

It's still not perfect but this patch makes it less hackish. I overwrite one of the XBL defined functions(using inheritance btw) so it will show the execution order view is selected. The actual sorting portion was super easy since all I needed was an oncommand listener. Now I just need to make the "Execution Order" button only show in the user scripts view.

@arantius
Copy link
Collaborator Author

arantius commented Nov 4, 2010

Merge remote branch 'arantius/execution-order'

Closed by c85b64b

@Martii
Copy link
Contributor

Martii commented Jan 26, 2011

See Minefield nightly

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:2.0b11pre) Gecko/20110126 Firefox/4.0b11pre

upper right hand corner... try it out.

See also #1217

dept42 pushed a commit to dept42/greasemonkey that referenced this issue May 12, 2011
dept42 pushed a commit to dept42/greasemonkey that referenced this issue May 12, 2011
dept42 pushed a commit to dept42/greasemonkey that referenced this issue May 12, 2011
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants