Doesn't work with high amount of add-ons

[Ken-Saunders]

Great add-on, but it doesn't work with my default profile that has 64 add-ons enabled.
I understand that having so many add-ons may be rare and so I don't expect you to go all out with spending time working on it, but do you have any ideas as to why this is?

It looks like it's trying to work, or actually is, but the throbber spins sporadically and the add-ons are never loaded/displayed in about:addons-memory.
It works fine with other profiles with fewer add-ons.

A quick note. You have an extra colon in your description on AMO.
"about::addons-memory"
Better than having an extra colon on you. :)

[nmaier]

Are there any suspicious error messages in the Web Console and/or Error Console?

[Ken-Saunders]

[03:36:57.427] [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004004 (NS_ERROR_ABORT) [nsIURI.path]" nsresult: "0x80004004 (NS_ERROR_ABORT)" location: "JS frame :: chrome://about-addons-memory/content/about.js :: process :: line 181" data: no]

Error: ReferenceError: addons is not defined
Source file: javascript:%20about:addons-memory
Line: 1

[nmaier]

Hmm. That actually helps.
Could you test the following build: https://code.downthemall.net/about-addons-memory.xpi
Has some additional logging, so posting related messages from the Error/Web Console would be appreciated.

Also, can you please tell me which version of which app you're using (Firefox, Mobile, etc.; Windows, Linux. Mac, Android, etc.) and where you got the build (official mozilla.org release, some package manager, portable apps).

[Ken-Saunders]

This version worked instantly. Do you still need/want more info?

For the record
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0
official mozilla.org release

[nmaier]

Do you still need/want more info?

Yes please. I only made the underlying error non-critical, but didn't fix it, as I don't yet now why it happens exactly.
Error/Web Console log output from that test build would be very welcome.

[Ken-Saunders]

Hi,

http://www.accessfirefox.org/tmp-other/web-console.txt
http://www.accessfirefox.org/tmp-other/error-console.txt

Oddly enough, when I had Console2 enabled, nothing showed which stinks because I had to disable it and copy and paste each entry.

The following is from another profile (with just a handful of add-ons), with your original version.
http://www.accessfirefox.org/tmp-other/web-error-console-original.txt

If you need anything else, feel free to let me know.

[nmaier]

Thanks, that helps.
Some add-on seems to have overridden/modified/amended the AddonManager implementation, incorrectly returning non Addon stuff, but that is no biggy.

However, as I kinda already expected my cheap hack to detect the omnijar/apk is broken. My hack will try to resolve about:config, but in your case the prefsearch addon has overridden that page and I end up with some unrelated .xpi instead of omnijar.
I really need a better way to figure out the Application "base".

[nmaier]

Alright, a temporary fix is now committed, so the next release will error more gracefully and still work most of the time.
Still, I need a proper fix in the long run.

[Ken-Saunders]

As I'm sure you may recall in our exchanges when I've submitted add-ons for review on AMO, I'm a very inexperienced developer so what is "detect the omnijar/apk"?
What does it have to do with your add-on, and will the fact that there are now (or will be) 2 omnijar's affect you?

Also, word of your add-on is getting around. You're no stranger to add-on exposure, but about:addons-memory is starting to gain momentum. Try a Google search for it, Search tools > Past month.
CNET has an article which is always helpful. I personally came across it at the following.
http://www.ghacks.net/2013/03/08/find-out-which-firefox-add-on-uses-the-most-memory/

[nmaier]

As I'm sure you may recall in our exchanges when I've submitted add-ons for review on AMO, I'm a very inexperienced developer so what is "detect the omnijar/apk"?
What does it have to do with your add-on, and will the fact that there are now (or will be) 2 omnijar's affect you?

That's nothing you need to worry about. This add-on list the "Firefox" pseudo add-on. To do that, it tried to determine a "base" uri, like other add-ons have as well (the installed .xpi or directory when em:unpack). The code to determine the base uri tries to get the uri by mapping about:config back to hopefully what is either omnijar, the apk (Firefox Mobile android package) or flat packaged directory of Firefox. As it turns out this is very fragile. In your case about:config is overridden by another add-on, so the code got the URI of that and "crashed".

Also, word of your add-on is getting around. You're no stranger to add-on exposure, but about:addons-memory is starting to gain momentum. Try a Google search for it, Search tools > Past month.
CNET has an article which is always helpful. I personally came across it at the following.
http://www.ghacks.net/2013/03/08/find-out-which-firefox-add-on-uses-the-most-memory/

Yeah, I noticed.
The ghacks.net article is at least sensible. Other places have far more sensationalist reports, giving users bad advice in the process. (You might have noticed the add-on description now contains a short message for the "Dear press" :p)

[bblokar]

The address isn’t valid

The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded.

Web addresses are usually written like http://www.example.com/
Make sure that you’re using forward slashes (i.e. /).

Is this addon still alive?

[InternalError503]

@bblokar

You can get the latest build here works with Firefox 24.0 and up.

You can also get it directly from my local repo

I originally was going to post to AMO but someone else did here the only issue is they appeared to have abandoned that idea also, So now i am not sure if to push it to AMO myself, It's a great addon that i want to see working for as long as possible before been wiped out with web extensions.

Note: The latest build is not signed.

[grahamperrin]

For what it's worth: not a problem with 72 of 432 extensions enabled with Waterfox 56.2.0 on FreeBSD-CURRENT.

(I use the workaround at #20 (comment) to limit the list to what's enabled. With the list unlimited: again, no problem.)