Closed
Bug 1084955
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
JavaScript errors in adb.js and missing AdbController
Categories
(Firefox OS Graveyard :: General, defect)
Tracking
(blocking-b2g:2.1+, b2g-v2.1 unaffected, b2g-v2.2 verified)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
b2g-v2.1 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v2.2 | --- | verified |
People
(Reporter: gerard-majax, Assigned: gerard-majax)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression, Whiteboard: [systemsfe])
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
955 bytes,
patch
|
fabrice
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I fear this may be a regression from bug 1072625 On a Gecko synced and built now, I see those errors in logcat: > W/GeckoConsole( 1744): [JavaScript Error: "TypeError: redeclaration of const Cu" {file: "chrome://b2g/content/devtools/adb.js" line: 11}] > W/GeckoConsole( 1744): [JavaScript Error: "ReferenceError: AdbController is not defined" {file: "chrome://b2g/content/devtools/debugger.js" line: 251}]
Flags: needinfo?(dhylands)
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Keywords: regression
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
The Cu const is already defined by settings.js when adb.js is included by shell.html. We should not redefine it.
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8507349 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8507354 [details] [diff] [review] Remove redeclaration of Cu r=fabrice As far as I can tell, in shell.html the very first file to be included is settings.js which already defines the Cu const at http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/ae1dfa192faf/b2g/chrome/content/settings.js#l11.
Attachment #8507354 -
Flags: review?(fabrice)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8507354 -
Flags: review?(fabrice) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → lissyx+mozillians
Whiteboard: [systemsfe]
Target Milestone: --- → 2.1 S7 (24Oct)
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/b2g-inbound/rev/eb9c0b46ccf5
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Looks like you found the cause - sorry about that.
Flags: needinfo?(dhylands)
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
[Blocking Requested - why for this release]: We are losing ADB access as soon as we flip the adb on setting, and thus need to hard reboot to pick up the changes. Until then, adb can't be seen, and this is breaking our QA lab setup (since we reflash and reboot all the time). Please uplift this patch asap to 2.1. Thanks, Tony
blocking-b2g: --- → 2.1?
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8507354 [details] [diff] [review] Remove redeclaration of Cu r=fabrice NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings. [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): bug 1072625 User impact if declined: no more adb for QA Testing completed: on device, this has been fixing broken adb for all people applying Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low String or UUID changes made by this patch: none
Attachment #8507354 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-b2g34?
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8507354 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-b2g34? → approval-mozilla-b2g34+
Updated•10 years ago
|
blocking-b2g: 2.1? → 2.1+
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/eb9c0b46ccf5
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
Bug 1072625 never landed on v2.1. Is it intended to at some point? Otherwise, why the blocking status? :)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #9) > Bug 1072625 never landed on v2.1. Is it intended to at some point? > Otherwise, why the blocking status? :) Tony asked for uplift in comment 6.
Flags: needinfo?(lissyx+mozillians)
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #9) > Bug 1072625 never landed on v2.1. Is it intended to at some point? > Otherwise, why the blocking status? :) There's literally nothing to uplift in this bug without bug 1072625 being present.
Flags: needinfo?(tchung)
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
Yeah and I don't see any reason to uplift bug 1072625. It doesn't fix anything, just a bit of code cleanup.
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
:dave, i guess i was under the impression from fabrice that this would fix adb detection, as its regressed upon setting. if i'm incorrect, can you educate on what broke that and what would fix it? something is causing our post device flashing to lose adb connectivity until it's physically rebooted, and that wont work for our automation setup.
Flags: needinfo?(tchung) → needinfo?(dhylands)
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
tchung: on what device? What build? I'm not seeing adb dropping on the flame.
Flags: needinfo?(dhylands)
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Tony Chung [:tchung] from comment #6) > [Blocking Requested - why for this release]: > > We are losing ADB access as soon as we flip the adb on setting, and thus > need to hard reboot to pick up the changes. Until then, adb can't be seen, > and this is breaking our QA lab setup (since we reflash and reboot all the > time). Please uplift this patch asap to 2.1. > > Thanks, > Tony So I'm really confused by this. You saying you lose adb when you enable it? If it was disabled, then how did you have an adb connection ithe first place (if you're running a user build). Are you running eng builds? Why is adb disabled? So you're seeing this on 2.1? Do you see the same behaviour on master?
Flags: needinfo?(tchung)
Comment 16•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dave Hylands [:dhylands] from comment #15) > (In reply to Tony Chung [:tchung] from comment #6) > > [Blocking Requested - why for this release]: > > > > We are losing ADB access as soon as we flip the adb on setting, and thus > > need to hard reboot to pick up the changes. Until then, adb can't be seen, > > and this is breaking our QA lab setup (since we reflash and reboot all the > > time). Please uplift this patch asap to 2.1. > > > > Thanks, > > Tony > > So I'm really confused by this. You saying you lose adb when you enable it? > > If it was disabled, then how did you have an adb connection ithe first place > (if you're running a user build). > > Are you running eng builds? Why is adb disabled? > > So you're seeing this on 2.1? Do you see the same behaviour on master? Hi David, okay it sounds like you werent aware of what we're seeing. this was on 2.1, and here's what happens: Manual Repro: 1) check that adb only is on, and adb devices finds the phone 2) flash.sh base v180 3) confirm adb should be still be active 4) run flash_pvt.py and full flash the 2.1 production build 5) goto settings > developer, and select ADB and DevTools box 6) verify adb is lost after selecting. i had to physically reboot the phone
Flags: needinfo?(tchung)
Comment 17•10 years ago
|
||
I discovered another issue with adb on the flame, which is in bug 1088494. That particular bug affects full-flash user builds. I don't understand your step 6 above. You said: > 6) verify adb is lost after selecting. i had to physically reboot the phone You had to physically reboot the phone why? To verify adb was lost. Or to recover? In step 4 you said you flashed the production build. Did you mean User build? I don't see anywhere in flash_pvt to choose production build.
Flags: needinfo?(tchung)
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
I did a full flash using ./flash_pvt.py (with no options). I chose the following options: Device: flame-kk Branch: mozilla-b2g34_v2_1 Build: User Flash: images It chose this URL: https://pvtbuilds.mozilla.org/pvt/mozilla.org/b2gotoro/nightly/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1-flame-kk/latest/flame-kk.zip And adb seems to work properly. Were you using the same URL?
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
I was finally able to reproduce the problem. Performing a Lock/Unlock fixed it for me (I didn't have to reboot). I think that this may be duplicate of bug 1088494. Let me see if I can reproduce the problem with a local build. The problem only seems to happen during the first session (FTU through first lock) after the flash_pvt.py. If I go through a Lock/Unlock cycle after FTU but before enabling ADB for the first time, then everything seems to behave properly.
Comment 20•10 years ago
|
||
I'm able to reproduce this locally as well, and it doesn't seem to be related to bug 1088494. Investigating....
Comment 21•10 years ago
|
||
I opened bug 1089028, since that seems to be the root cause.
Comment 22•10 years ago
|
||
Verified the issue is fixed on 2.2 Flame Followed by steps in Comment 16 a couple times. adb is didn't loose and able to detect the device Device: Flame 2.2 Master KK BuildID: 20141105160209 Gaia: 7918024c737c4570cacd784f267e28737ae05dea Gecko: 2114ef80f6ae Gonk: 48835395daa6a49b281db62c50805bd6ca24077e Version: 36.0a1 (2.2 Master) Firmware: V188-1 User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; rv:36.0) Gecko/36.0 Firefox/36.0
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
QA Whiteboard: [QAnalyst-Triage?]
Flags: needinfo?(ktucker)
Updated•10 years ago
|
QA Whiteboard: [QAnalyst-Triage?] → [QAnalyst-Triage+]
Flags: needinfo?(ktucker)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8507354 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-b2g34+
Updated•8 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(chung808)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•