Opened on 02/23/2016 at 12:18:44 PM
Closed on 02/24/2016 at 08:54:33 AM
#3684 closed defect (worksforme)
Link to disable Acceptable Ads in first-run page is broken
Reported by: | arthur | Assignee: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | P1 | Milestone: | |
Module: | Unknown | Keywords: | |
Cc: | sebastian, greiner, kzar | Blocked By: | |
Blocking: | Platform: | Safari | |
Ready: | no | Confidential: | no |
Tester: | Unknown | Verified working: | no |
Review URL(s): |
Description
Environment
OS X Yosemite 11.10 Beta
Safari 9.0
Adblock Plus 1.10.2
How to reproduce
- Install Adblock Plus from https://adblockplus.org/
- Click on "disable" at "If you still want to block every ad you can disable this in a few seconds".
Observed behaviour
Nothing happens.
Expected behaviour
The options window should show up allowing to the user to opt out of Acceptable Ads.
Tested it with Safari 8.0.6 as well which is working for me.
Attachments (0)
Change History (6)
comment:1 Changed on 02/23/2016 at 04:40:43 PM by greiner
- Cc greiner added
comment:2 Changed on 02/23/2016 at 04:46:38 PM by sebastian
- Cc kzar added
comment:3 Changed on 02/23/2016 at 05:13:39 PM by kzar
I'm also not able to reproduce this on OS X 10.11 El Capitan with Safari 9.0. Both for 1.10.2 and current tip of repo.
comment:4 Changed on 02/23/2016 at 05:26:52 PM by kzar
Also not able to reproduce this on the test machine running OS X 10.11 El Capitan Beta and Safari 9.0 after installing the extension 1.10.2 from the store.
comment:5 Changed on 02/23/2016 at 06:22:05 PM by arthur
Strange, will try it tomorrow again.
comment:6 Changed on 02/24/2016 at 08:54:33 AM by arthur
- Resolution set to worksforme
- Status changed from new to closed
Working for me today as well.
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I was unable to reproduce this issue with the following setups:
OSX 10.11 Beta
Safari 9.0
Adblock Plus 1.10.2
OSX 10.10.3
Safari 8.0.6
Adblock Plus 1.10.2
Note that there's already a ticket about Safari messing up the initialization of JavaScript after using the back-button (see #3535). Therefore I'd assume that this is the same issue.