81–90 of 96 posts
What a bizarre response from Google, a couple hours after this was posted: > @Reporter: As we are not very clear about the issue being faced by you, could you please elaborate on the same by providing detailed manual repro steps to reproduce the issue from our end. > Also requesting you to share the expected, actual behaviours along with screen-cast for better understanding of the issue. > *Note: Requesting you to co…
probably just an ai or unskilled triage tech responding?
The whole local development is still a big mess. I recently starting using http://subdomain.localhost to keep different projects apart during development only to realize that you can't make that work with OAuth, because you can't use http://subdomain.localhost as a Oauth callback host. But you also can't share cookies between subdomain.localhost and localhost to redirect back without losing the session.
Any competent provider should give you some method for local testing and you should work with them given the provider you've chosen.
The whole local development is still a big mess. I recently starting using http://subdomain.localhost to keep different projects apart during development only to realize that you can't make that work with OAuth, because you can't use http://subdomain.localhost as a Oauth callback host. But you also can't share cookies between subdomain.localhost and localhost to redirect back without losing the session.
I don't think there's an oauth requirement where those don't work and your issue is more likely to be with the provider itself and restrictions they make on http or local domains. I'd either run an nginx proxy to get around http or choose some domains that don't conflict with their local restrictions. You can add whatever domain you want to a hosts file that resolves to your local IP. I leverage this a lot. Any compe…
What a bizarre response from Google, a couple hours after this was posted: > @Reporter: As we are not very clear about the issue being faced by you, could you please elaborate on the same by providing detailed manual repro steps to reproduce the issue from our end. > Also requesting you to share the expected, actual behaviours along with screen-cast for better understanding of the issue. > *Note: Requesting you to co…
This kind of reply is why I can’t be bothered to report bugs anymore in general - between you and the people who know how to solve the problem there are five layers of bureaucrats who want to waste your time by bouncing the ball back into your court and asking for completely irrelevant details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because of the omnibox that people no longer know what an URL is.
You have it backwards: The omnibox (or whatever you want to call it) came about because people don't know what the hell a Universal Resource Locator is. Most people don't know how to navigate their local file system, let alone the internet.
AOL keywords were thing. Then fancy domain names that don't sound like domain names. Then search keywords. Then hashtags etc. The goal has always been to not ask the customer to think about it and just get to businesses.
What a bizarre response from Google, a couple hours after this was posted: > @Reporter: As we are not very clear about the issue being faced by you, could you please elaborate on the same by providing detailed manual repro steps to reproduce the issue from our end. > Also requesting you to share the expected, actual behaviours along with screen-cast for better understanding of the issue. > *Note: Requesting you to co…
Another issue I filed:
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40900126
I provided a click-by-click instruction with only 3 steps.
The triager created screen recordings twice, each time skipping an aspect of step 2; I wrote:
> "You did not follow step (2) of my repro steps: Loading a 1 GB file form a Windows file share (network folder)."
>
> ...
>
> This time you made the file 1 GB, but still do not load it from a Windows file share (network folder). Instead, you are again using your local Downloads folder.Earlier quoted context omitted.
probably just an ai or unskilled triage tech responding?
I'd tend towards the latter, AI would have been more wordy and polite (it would have written "Also, please share" instead of " Also requesting you to share"). Sounds like someone just had a desire to make this pesky bug report go away, requesting detailed version information, detailed steps to reproduce, expected behaviour and a screencast (!), hoping the reporter wouldn't provide them so they have an excuse to close…
Can’t you usually force it to skip the search by prefixing with the schema? Certainly if I type in http://example.internal and press enter, I would be very displeased to have that turn into a Google search regardless of whether the part after the // fits some regex or whatever else internal to the browser.
Right, considering that single-label names (indistinguishable from search queries) have been a thing since WINS/NetBIOS, DHCP suffixing, etc. -- expecting a dot (let alone a dot followed by a public suffix) is bogus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can do it like they previously did it: provide suggestions by sending the search box content.
How is that different in the case of a combined search&url bar?
If I'm accidentally pasting what I thought was a URL but actually is some other text in the paste buffer in the combined input box, that text is already sent to the search engine (provided suggestions are enabled, which they are by default).
If I do the same in the split URL/search box situation, and paste it in the URL box, it would at most look into the browser's history, keeping the input local.