Project

General

Profile

Bug #12140

Electrum 2.7.9-1 has no pre-configured proxy

Added by anonym almost 3 years ago. Updated almost 3 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
Start date:
01/13/2017
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
bugfix/12140-electrum-proxy
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:
Starter:
Affected tool:

Description

So it won't connect unless the user clicks Tools -> Network -> Proxy -> SOCKS5 -> Ok. This is a regression against Tails 2.9.1 affecting Tails 2.10~rc1.

Associated revisions

Revision d63e67b2 (diff)
Added by anonym almost 3 years ago

Make the Electrum proxy configuration apply after upgrading to 2.7.9-1.

Without these changes, our proxy configuration is ignored, and
Electrum will try an unproxied connection which our firewall will
block.

These changes incidentally makes Electrum behave nicer: users will now
not be presented the network configuration part of the setup wizard --
a server will be picked randomly, and Electrum will auto-connect. The
automated test suite is adjusted accordingly.

Will-fix: #12140

Revision 44741e48
Added by intrigeri almost 3 years ago

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/bugfix/12140-electrum-proxy' into testing (Fix-committed: #12140)

History

#1 Updated by anonym almost 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Assignee deleted (anonym)
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to bugfix/12140-electrum-proxy

Let's first note why this happened: we install electrum from stretch, so we got upgraded from 2.6.4-1 to 2.7.9-1. Version 2.6.4-1~bpo8+1 is in jessie-backports now, so we should probably have switched our pinning to that instead.

However, this upgrade brings a UX improvement: we can now ship a config that makes Electrum auto-connect (and select a random server) with the network part of the setup wizard removed. Previously users needed to realize that they can accept the defaults on the network page instead of selecting a server themselves. So I think we should keep this upgraded Electrum

Please review'n'merge into the testing branch!

#2 Updated by intrigeri almost 3 years ago

  • Subject changed from Electrum 2.7.9-1 as no pre-configured proxy. to Electrum 2.7.9-1 has no pre-configured proxy
  • Assignee set to intrigeri

#3 Updated by intrigeri almost 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to anonym
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

However, this upgrade brings a UX improvement: we can now ship a config that makes Electrum auto-connect (and select a random server) with the network part of the setup wizard removed.

Cool!

But this won't apply to users who already have a persistent ~/.electrum, so this branch should add a note about how to migrate to the release notes (in a mostly empty release notes new page if needed), so that we don't forget to document this. No need to do all the tech writing yourself, but at least give tech writers the info they'll need to document what one needs to do :)

#4 Updated by anonym almost 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from anonym to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

intrigeri wrote:

However, this upgrade brings a UX improvement: we can now ship a config that makes Electrum auto-connect (and select a random server) with the network part of the setup wizard removed.

Cool!

But this won't apply to users who already have a persistent ~/.electrum, so this branch should add a note about how to migrate to the release notes (in a mostly empty release notes new page if needed), so that we don't forget to document this. No need to do all the tech writing yourself, but at least give tech writers the info they'll need to document what one needs to do :)

Note that this would only help users that explicitly selected a server manually by mistake -- users that just clicked "Next" got a random server picked so they are happy, and users that really wanted the server they manually picked are also happy. I don't think adding instructions is worth it, and I think it'd be really hard to write something so that all users understand which of the three above cases they are in, so they know if they need to act.

#5 Updated by intrigeri almost 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 50 to 60

OK, thanks for the explanation! Code review passes.

#6 Updated by intrigeri almost 3 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • % Done changed from 60 to 100

#7 Updated by intrigeri almost 3 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

#8 Updated by anonym almost 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved

Also available in: Atom PDF