Bugzilla

(In reply to Dan Robertson (:dlrobertson) from comment #4)
> May be related to the fix landed for bug 1753019

I don't think so (though I suppose it's hard to tell with this new approach of lumping failures from all subtests into a single bug).

I think it's just the issue we diagnosed in bug 1737725 comment 11, which was previously tracked in several bugs (basically, one per message which usually meant one per subtest) including bug 1737725, and is now tracked in this "single tracking bug" for the test group.

We do plan to work on a fix for this underlying issue in 2022 H2 (it's in our Stabilization Sprint 2a). I'll assign this bug to myself to reflect.

I hope the sheriffs will afford us some leniency until that fix is in place (since this aggregation method now means the intermittent failure rate is above the disable-recommended threshold of 30/week, but nothing actually changed/regressed, we're just grouping more things into a single bug).

(In reply to Dan Robertson (:dlrobertson) from comment #4)
> May be related to the fix landed for bug 1753019

I don't think so (though I suppose it's hard to tell with this new approach of lumping failures from all subtests into a single bug).

I think it's just the issue we diagnosed in bug 1737725 comment 11, which was previously tracked in several bugs (basically, one per message which usually meant one per subtest) including bug 1737725, and is now tracked in this "single tracking bug" for the test group.

We do plan to work on a fix for this underlying issue in 2022 H2 (it's in our Stabilization Sprint 2a). I'll assign this bug to myself to reflect that.

I hope the sheriffs will afford us some leniency until that fix is in place (since this aggregation method now means the intermittent failure rate is above the disable-recommended threshold of 30/week, but nothing actually changed/regressed, we're just grouping more things into a single bug).