Last modified: 2012-04-13 15:50:41 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T33729, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 31729 - Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'syntaxOk' of null
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'syntaxOk' of null
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
AbuseFilter (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especia...
: easy, javascript
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-10-15 15:43 UTC by Helder
Modified: 2012-04-13 15:50 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Helder 2011-10-15 15:43:11 UTC
If I go to the URL above and click in the field named "Conditions:" and then press a key such as CTRL, I get the following error in Google Chrome:
----
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'syntaxOk' of null
----

the error is cause in the line
        if ( el.syntaxOk ) {
of the JS which appears inside of a <script type="text/javascript"> tag in a page such as this:
 https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:AbuseFilter/history/105/item/1122

I think it can be fixed by first checking if is different of null and only then checking for el.syntaxOk.
Comment 1 Helder 2011-10-18 20:08:10 UTC
The error also happens on Firefox 7.0.1.
----
Erro: el is null
Arquivo-fonte: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:AbuseFilter/history/105/item/1122?uselang=en
Linha: 549
----
Comment 2 Mark A. Hershberger 2011-10-19 23:31:23 UTC
So, looking at where that error happens, and the code around it, I see wgFilterBoxName.  Looks like that bit of js (edit.js) was removed in r95572.  Maybe all that is needed is an update?
Comment 3 Mark A. Hershberger 2011-10-19 23:33:20 UTC
CCing Roan who reviewed the code before to see if he thinks it is ready to be deployed.
Comment 4 Roan Kattouw 2011-10-25 15:21:29 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> CCing Roan who reviewed the code before to see if he thinks it is ready to be
> deployed.
If you're talking about r95572, that's an enormous revision and shouldn't be deployed by itself.
Comment 5 Beau 2012-04-13 15:50:41 UTC
It seems the fix has been deployed some time ago.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links