Assigning to Drew for prioritization.

I don't know if settings pages should be available if the user is forced into incognito mode. David? Should we change this behavior?

+privard

I was able to repro this on Windows. This looks like a bug as well, I don't see why we disable settings page (but I don't have any historical context).

Able to reproduce this issue on M60 #60.0.3112.101, this is a non-regression issue.
Considering this as feature request.

change status to assigned since owner dskaram@ is decided.

+Alex who mentioned in another thread that chrome://settings opens back in the normal profile when invoked from incognito. This explains this behavior, which seems to be WAI.

Alex, can you give us more background on why it's done that way? Thanks!

This predates me so I'm not certain :/ 
+Max +Eli might remember.

Hmm. Thinking about WebUI Settings work that's in flight now: maybe a reason to keep Settings in the main profile is because of cookie-state that would be differently reflected in Settings in the different modes (ex: Dice). 

Thanks Alex, that makes sense. Although in our case, when Chrome is forced in Incognito mode only (IncognitoModeAvailability=2), this becomes problematic as it's then impossible to open the settings page.

Either we close this as WAI or we add extra logic where chrome://settings is allowed to be open in an incognito mode for this special purpose.

Personally, I would keep this as WAI, as I don't see much demand for this.

We would need to build a special version of Settings that contains some of the parent profile's information but not all of it. For example, an Incognito window has access to the profile's saved passwords which are part of Settings. But it would be confusing to display content settings (e.g. location permission for example.com) in an Incognito window because content settings aren't applied and persisted in Incognito windows.

I don't have any additional historical context to add, I was not involved in this design decision. If we do create an Incognito-specific version of settings, to Alex's and Max's points, we'd probably also want to take out all the stuff in the top "People" section, since we don't want to let users turn sync on or configure sync from Incognito.

I personally don't think it's worth the effort, edge cases will arise and this would have to be maintained.

Unless there are strong objections against it, I propose we close this as WontFix.

following georgesak's recommandation