[4892] Firefox spell checker not working in the full editor

[NedF]

I just tested the report of bolding and if I apply bold, italic, underline or strikethrough, the spell checker works, even on the first line of a multiline message.  Changing the font face, size or color also makes it work.  As does superscript and subscript, but only if you put the cursor on the formatted part of the word.

[Willi Winzig]

That is so weird.... no problems here with FF4 or FF5 for me on windows 64-bit though.

problem is here and in all SMF 2.0 I have tested. (FF5, FF6, Win7/64) With the WYSIWYG Editor the spell check doesn't work. And in this case, it's a SMF problem/bug.

[IchBin™]

I'm not so sure. Just tried FF6 (Win7 64bit) here on a fresh install and wyswig with spell check is working fine. I think it has something to do with environment or some other small detail we seem to be missing.

[Illori]

IchBin try with 2 or more lines of text in the WYSIWYG editor that is when you can really see the problem.

[IchBin™]

Even added some bbc to make sure it wasn't that...

[Illori]

but can you right click on the words? i can not with more then 1 line, the cursor is off by over a line when you try to right click.

[Willi Winzig]

something strange, if you use bbc, equal whichever, it works with the formatted text/word

[IchBin™]

Ok, yep it does the same for me. I didn't realize they were talking about the right click menu, I thought it was just the highlight part for some dumb reason. I did notice that it works on the BBC words like Willi Winzip stated too.

[NedF]

We have updated our forum to 2.0.1 and the problem still exists, as I thought it would.  Won't anyone submit this as a bug?  It's certainly been confirmed by enough people, I would think.

[Illori]

the release of 2.0.1 did not include a fix for this and most likely 2.0 will not include a fix for this as 2.0 is only getting security fixes now.

[forumite]

Illori, how do we ensure it gets fixed in 2.1?  Is it something you'd add to the bug tracker, or is there a separate bug list for 2.1 where we need to report this?

[Illori]

i am not sure if it has been reported to the bug tracker yet.

[NedF]

the release of 2.0.1 did not include a fix for this and most likely 2.0 will not include a fix for this as 2.0 is only getting security fixes now.

Can we expect a fix in 2.1 in that case?  And will someone please file this as a bug.

[Illori]

we can only hope it will get fixed in 2.1 but that depends on someone understanding what is causing the issue to happen, which i am not sure anyone does at this point.

[Norv]

I'll have a look at this later. We might include it in a 2.0.x patch release as well, if it's important for people, and I suspect, by the sound of the reports here, that there's a small thing that got overlooked for this behavior to happen.

Yes, it should be tracked, on the other hand, don't worry if it's not by any chance, we are monitoring this forum as well.

[forumite]

Thanks Norv, much appreciated.

[青山 素子]

the release of 2.0.1 did not include a fix for this and most likely 2.0 will not include a fix for this as 2.0 is only getting security fixes now.

WTF? Seriously? This is exactly the kind of bug that should be fixed in a point release instead of waiting around months for a new version that will require a major upgrade process. The only exception would be if fixing the bug would result in major code changes. See the early 1.1 releases for an example of bug fixing (heck, the image verification was almost completely revamped around 1.1.8 or so).

If that's the new policy, all I can say is that the new team is really ruining SMF.

We might include it in a 2.0.x patch release as well, if it's important for people, and I suspect, by the sound of the reports here, that there's a small thing that got overlooked for this behavior to happen.

Well, at least one sorta-sane voice on the issue...

[Oldiesmann]

Seems to work better in Firefox 7, but we will definitely find a fix for this and implement a patch for it if/when a fix is found.

Illori - where was it stated that we wouldn't be fixing any 2.0 bugs in future patches? We have patched bugs in stable releases in the past, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

[Norv]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, due to incomplete statements, while not entirely wrong, but taken too exclusively. We usually state that 2.0 (and 1.1.x/1.0.x) will only receive security fixes or major functionality fixes as case may be. Most of the patch releases if not all, may be driven by security needs to address (if not issues, perhaps weaknesses found), while they may include bug fixes just fine, as possible and as fit, considering relevance for people's forums and the size of changes required, among others. (and I think that's how it happened in 1.1.x as well).
Motoko,
the image/attachments verification changes (heavy changes) in 1.1.9 was for security reasons.

I hope you will all agree that too strict statements are not to be taken a la lettre, and I don't see why get so excited over them. What SMF will actually do, is driven by the needs of our users, and if a bug found is major or important to people, we will at least try to address it in a future patch, all while considering size, high risk of collisions or not, relevancy to a very small part of the userbase (and as I said, this doesn't sound like any, on the contrary, if my suspicions are confirmed). In the cases where tradeoffs make a bug fix unsuitable for a patch, we may release a mod instead (so doing the same thing as a patch, but making it optional). THIS is (roughly) how it happens, and I guarantee that.

Too exclusive statements, or nitpicking them, will not help anyone. Reasons for one or another, and any kind of feedback/help as possible, will make a difference. Thank you.

[emanuele]

It works if I use the MSIE 7 user agent in FF8, so it should mean is some FF-specific piece of code we have for the spell check.