Assuming comment 4 is all there is, then we could work around this by adjusting `mainThreadBusy` to add `1ms` to the `ms` value, hypothetically. That would ensure that **at least** that many milliseconds have passed (0-1ms more than the passed-in value). I'm not sure if that's the right level at which to make that change; this is a "utils" script, so depending on how other tests use it and whether they make similar or completely-different assumptions about its behavior, I could imagine this being a good or bad place to make that change.
Bug 2011967 Comment 5 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Assuming comment 4 is all there is, then we could work around this by adjusting `mainThreadBusy` to add `1ms` to the `ms` value, hypothetically. That would ensure that **at least** that many milliseconds have passed (0-1ms more than the passed-in value). [EDIT: Maybe 2ms would be better, to also account for the "jitter" privacy feature; see next comment] I'm not sure if that's the right level at which to make that change; this is a "utils" script, so depending on how other tests use it and whether they make similar or completely-different assumptions about its behavior, I could imagine this being a good or bad place to make that change.
Assuming comment 4 is all there is, then we could work around this by adjusting `mainThreadBusy` to add `1ms` to the `ms` value, hypothetically. That would ensure that **at least** that many milliseconds have passed (0-1ms more than the passed-in value). [EDIT: Maybe `+2ms` would be better, to also account for the "jitter" privacy feature; see next comment] I'm not sure if that's the right level at which to make that change; this is a "utils" script, so depending on how other tests use it and whether they make similar or completely-different assumptions about its behavior, I could imagine this being a good or bad place to make that change.