I think you already added your own fix, but just in case it helps, I think I figured out a solution earlier.
I changed every tenth registry key to be a single digit (20 becomes 3, 30 becomes 4, etc). This prevents any individual policies from the initial release from leaving orphaned registry keys that could cause issues, while also maintaining the order in both the group policy editor and Windows registry (1, 12, 13, 14, ..., 19, 2, 21, 22, ..., 28, 29, 3, 31, etc) which ensures a folder with lots of bookmarks remains in the expected order.
I think you already added your own fix, but just in case it helps, I think I figured out a solution earlier.
I changed every tenth registry key to be a single digit (20 becomes 3, 30 becomes 4, etc). This prevents any individual policies from the initial release from leaving orphaned registry keys that could cause issues, while also maintaining the order in both the group policy editor and Windows registry (1, 12, 13, 14, ..., 19, 2, 21, 22, ..., 28, 29, 3, 31, etc) which ensures a folder with lots of bookmarks remains in the expected order.
Jeffrey McClain [Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:31:59 +0000 (10:31 -0700)]
Added Table Descriptions
I added brief descriptions for each line in the table that was documented.
There were a few policies that I left blank because they don't seem to be implemented yet (HardwareAcceleration, Permissions[Camera, Microphone, Location, Notifications]) despite being defined in the source code.
Jeffrey McClain [Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:54:00 +0000 (12:54 -0700)]
Added even more bookmarks
I added some more bookmarks, bringing the total to 89.
This is the current maximum with my "off-by-ten" implementation, unless the registry and group policy ordering is fixed. The order is currently alphabetical rather than numerical, so I cannot go higher than 99 (89+10) without breaking the sort. This is also why I did off-by-ten (1, 12, 13, 14, etc).
Jeffrey McClain [Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:48:51 +0000 (12:48 -0700)]
Added even more bookmarks
I added some more bookmarks, bringing the total to 89.
This is the current maximum with my "off-by-ten" implementation, unless the registry and group policy ordering is fixed. The order is currently alphabetical rather than numerical, so I cannot go higher than 99 (89+10) without breaking the sort. This is also why I did off-by-ten (1, 12, 13, 14, etc).
Jeffrey McClain [Fri, 10 Aug 2018 21:26:53 +0000 (14:26 -0700)]
Added indentation, Alphabetized Sections
I added small sections for "Certificates" and "Cookies", as well as indented the subcategories by 50px. I also moved the "DisableSetDesktopBackground" section, so it is in the correct order alphabetically.
Jeffrey McClain [Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:23:39 +0000 (15:23 -0700)]
Additional Bookmark Policies
Previously there were only 5 bookmark policies, I added 45 more to bring it to 50.
I prefixed the first nine policy names with zero (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) to workaround the group policy editor sorting alphabetically (1, 11, 12, ..., 2, 21, 22, ...) rather than numerically (1, 2, 3, ... , 10, 11, 12).
Jeffrey McClain [Tue, 7 Aug 2018 21:48:07 +0000 (14:48 -0700)]
Additional Bookmark Policies
Previously there were only 5 bookmark policies, I added 45 more to bring it to 50.
Note that I changed the registry "key" values to be 10 greater than the bookmark number after the first bookmark policy.
I did this as a workaround to an issue I noticed, where the registry numbering was sorted alphabetically (1, 11, 12, ..., 2, 21, 22, ...) rather than numerically (1, 2, 3, ... , 10, 11, 12).
I also prefixed the first nine policy names with zero (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) to workaround the group policy editor sorting alphabetically rather than numerically.
scottnotpat [Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:53:23 +0000 (13:53 -0500)]
Modified firefox.admx file so each policy reflects the version of Firefox supported vs the Windows version supported by the policy.
Added the supporting strings to firefox.adml for both the en-US and de-DE policy localizations.
Brandon Kurtz [Tue, 5 Jun 2018 20:20:37 +0000 (16:20 -0400)]
warning about comments in .json more clear
I have no particular preference for the wording; just trying to make the warning more clear. This warning is hard to spot, yet important for folks without json experience.
git.p6c8.net / policy-templates.git / log