Beta revision number not available for title

[benplumley]

On the beta channel, the version number (as shown in About Firefox) is eg 47.0b2. However, none of NTT's variables for window name show the "b2" part. They only show "47.0".

[whimboo]

Interesting. We are getting the version via this.appInfo.version. And that clearly has not the beta version suffix. An additional check for the about window source shows me the following:

http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/base/content/aboutDialog.xul#48

__MOZ_APP_VERSION_DISPLAY__ seems to be a placeholder which gets replaced during the build process of Firefox.

Because of that and no other instance of the beta revision in the application package, I'm not sure how to find out the beta index.

[benplumley]

The General Data section of about:telemetry shows the variable application.displayVersion with value 47.0b3. I don't know if that's something that can be queried.

[xabolcs]

Hi!

Telemetry's application.displayVersion traces into TelemetryController.jsm's Impl._getApplicationSection()#384:

379     return {
380       architecture: arch,
381       buildId: Services.appinfo.appBuildID,
382       name: Services.appinfo.name,
383       version: Services.appinfo.version,
384       displayVersion: AppConstants.MOZ_APP_VERSION_DISPLAY,
385       vendor: Services.appinfo.vendor,
386       platformVersion: Services.appinfo.platformVersion,
387       xpcomAbi: Services.appinfo.XPCOMABI,
388       channel: updateChannel,
389     };

... where Appconstants can be imported with a Cu.import:

Cu.import("resource://gre/modules/AppConstants.jsm");

AppConstants.jsm was brought to you by Bug 1124503 with milestone mozilla39.

It's OK to me to implement with AppConstants.jsm and fail silently if that isn't available.
Or put a "displayVersion is not available in this version" warning in the variable value.

[xabolcs]

@benplumley, thanks for the Telemetry hint! 👍

[whimboo]

Great to see that AppConstants.jsm module. It would indeed be great to get it added.

[whimboo]

@xabolcs, this looks like an easy thing to get added now that we have experience with AppConstants.jsm. Do you think we could fold this into the 3.9 release?

[xabolcs]

Sure we could, but please see the conversation in PR #212, starting with my comment!