Closed
Bug 717963
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Use getBrowserURL() in Firefox tests to ease porting them, part 1
Categories
(Firefox :: General, defect)
Firefox
General
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Firefox 13
People
(Reporter: sgautherie, Assigned: capella)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 5 obsolete files)
2.02 KB,
patch
|
sgautherie
:
checkin+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
"Found 2 matching lines in 2 files" See bug 717753 as an example.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
The comment says two files found, I currently find / change: test_embeds.xul. What's the other? I'll fix it...
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 595679 [details] [diff] [review] Possible fix ... [Moved to bug 725647] (In reply to Mark Capella from comment #1) > The comment says two files found, I currently find / change: test_embeds.xul. Good catch! Though this is not exactly this bug: I filed bug 725647 and assigned it to you. Also, you copied the code I initially attached rather than the code I eventually checked in. NB: In this case, I don't think you need to add the bug reference to the test, but reviewer would tell. > What's the other? I'll fix it... Thanks! See 'URL' field of this bug.
Attachment #595679 -
Attachment description: Possible fix ... → Possible fix ...
[Moved to bug 725647]
Attachment #595679 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #595679 -
Flags: feedback-
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → markcapella
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
FYI and comments / feedback please... This bug would refer to changes in: File#1) /browser/components/sessionstore/test/browser_580512.js File#2) /browser/base/content/test/browser_bug422590.js File#1 is already using Services.prefs so the change seems to be: From ===> var newWin = openDialog("chrome://browser/content/", "_blank", "chrome,dialog=no,toolbar=no", "about:blank"); To ===> var newWin = openDialog(Services.prefs.getCharPref("browser.chromeURL"), "_blank", "chrome,dialog=no,toolbar=no", "about:blank"); File#2 is not apparently using Services.prefs, so the change would be: From ===> var win = openDialog("chrome://browser/content/", "_blank", "chrome,all,dialog=no", argURIs.join("|")); To ===> Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/Services.jsm"); // If import required var win = openDialog(Services.prefs.getCharPref("browser.chromeURL"), "_blank", "chrome,all,dialog=no", argURIs.join("|"));
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mark Capella [:capella] from comment #3) > var newWin = > openDialog(Services.prefs.getCharPref("browser.chromeURL"), "_blank", Yes, that should be it. > Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/Services.jsm"); > // If import required Services.jsm should already be available to browser-chrome tests, iirc.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #599556 -
Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz)
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 599556 [details] [diff] [review] Use "browser.chromeURL" Please use getBrowserURL().
Attachment #599556 -
Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
After a review+ I can do a TRY server AUTOLAND or ask someone to push it for me.
Attachment #599556 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #599566 -
Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz)
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
You're replacing openDialog with window.openDialog for seemingly no good reason. Please don't do this.
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
Sorry, I grabbed the wrong code snip.
Attachment #599566 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #599566 -
Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz)
Attachment #599571 -
Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz)
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599571 -
Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [good first bug] → [autoland-try]
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [autoland-try] → [autoland-in-queue]
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
["Mid-air collision detected!", on review then on comment. Bah :-|] (In reply to Dão Gottwald [:dao] from comment #6) > Please use getBrowserURL(). Good catch: browser-chrome tests have access to this function (which SeaMonkey has too) :-) (In reply to Mark Capella [:capella] from comment #7) > After a review+ I can do a TRY server AUTOLAND or ask someone to push it for > me. No need for this trivial patch.
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
Thanks to all :-P
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
> [autoland-try]
And, for this patch, you should have used "-u mochitest-o" to save resources.
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599571 -
Flags: feedback+
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599556 -
Flags: feedback+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
serge: Found this... http://trychooser.pub.build.mozilla.org/, will read
Comment 14•12 years ago
|
||
Autoland Patchset: Patches: 599571 Branch: mozilla-central => try Error applying patch 599571 to mozilla-central. patching file browser/base/content/test/browser_bug422590.js Hunk #1 FAILED at 2 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file browser/base/content/test/browser_bug422590.js.rej patching file browser/components/sessionstore/test/browser_580512.js Hunk #1 FAILED at 34 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file browser/components/sessionstore/test/browser_580512.js.rej abort: patch failed to apply Could not apply and push patchset:
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [autoland-in-queue]
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mozilla RelEng Bot from comment #14) > abort: patch failed to apply Ftr, Good wrt this bug, but rather odd wrt AutoLand :-/ I wonder whether the issue is with the patch (which looks good) or the (experimental) service.
Comment 16•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) from comment #15) > I wonder whether the issue is with the patch (which looks good) or the > (experimental) service. Autoland applies the patch to m-c tip. So either the patch needs unbitrotting, or it only applies cleanly on top of something that had not yet merged from inbound to m-c, but will be fine when landed directly on inbound.
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•12 years ago
|
||
I reviewed the DIFF file locally, and see my text editor had added WIN style CRLF's ... I can post the corrected DIFF if it's easiest to all...
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mark Capella [:capella] from comment #17) > I reviewed the DIFF file locally, and see my text editor had added WIN style > CRLF's ... I can post the corrected DIFF if it's easiest to all... Yes, please, we usually work with LF only.
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•12 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599616 -
Attachment description: DIFF no CR → Use getBrowserURL()
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599571 -
Attachment description: 3d Try Patch → Use getBrowserURL()
[Has CRLF :-(]
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599566 -
Attachment description: 2nd Try Patch / DIFF File → Use getBrowserURL()
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599556 -
Attachment description: Patch / DIFF File → USe "browser.chromeURL"
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599556 -
Attachment description: USe "browser.chromeURL" → Use "browser.chromeURL"
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [c-n: patch 599616]
Reporter | ||
Comment 20•12 years ago
|
||
Mark, please add author and description to your patch, to ease c-n: see http://blog.bonardo.net/2010/06/22/so-youre-about-to-use-checkin-needed
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•12 years ago
|
||
Sorry Serge, I'm still getting used to the process. Comment please.
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [c-n: patch 599616] → [c-n: patch 600409]
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 600409 [details] [diff] [review] Use getBrowserURL() [Checked in: Comment 27] I added Author / Title to attachment ... looks like I need a re-review before checkin
Attachment #600409 -
Flags: review?(dao)
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599616 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Reporter | ||
Comment 23•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 600409 [details] [diff] [review] Use getBrowserURL() [Checked in: Comment 27] (In reply to Mark Capella [:capella] from comment #22) > I added Author / Title to attachment ... looks like I need a re-review > before checkin No, you don't: the code is exactly the same.
Attachment #600409 -
Attachment description: Use getBrowserURL(v2) No CR Has Author/Title → Use getBrowserURL()
Attachment #600409 -
Flags: review?(dao)
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #600409 -
Flags: checkin?
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [c-n: patch 600409]
Comment 24•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/89fbc0fd6006
Keywords: checkin-needed
Summary: Use "browser.chromeURL" preference in Firefox tests, to ease porting them → Use getBrowserURL() in Firefox tests to ease porting them
Reporter | ||
Comment 25•12 years ago
|
||
Ah, it looks like there is a few more: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string="chrome%3A%2F%2Fbrowser%2Fcontent%2Fbrowser.xul&case=1&find=%2Fbrowser%2F.*%2Ftest "Found 4 matching lines in 3 files"
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #599571 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•12 years ago
|
||
I might have preferred to allow this patch to finish the move to production, and then to address these three files in a followup bug. With all the back and forth already on this, I'm getting the feeling of shooting a moving target. Are we sure the research is done now, and there won't be additional scope creep later?
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #600409 -
Attachment description: Use getBrowserURL() → Use getBrowserURL()
[Checked in: Comment 27]
Attachment #600409 -
Flags: checkin? → checkin+
Reporter | ||
Comment 28•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mark Capella [:capella] from comment #26) > I might have preferred to allow this patch to finish the move to production, > and then to address these three files in a followup bug. With all the back Sure. I was thinking about a second patch: this is still this bug. > and forth already on this, I'm getting the feeling of shooting a moving > target. Are we sure the research is done now, and there won't be additional > scope creep later? Sorry not to have been explicit about that earlier: the additional search is taken from bug 17969. Please take it easy: "sure" vs "real life" :-|
Assignee | ||
Comment 29•12 years ago
|
||
I'm going to have to drop off this one due to my backlog and recent involvement with new development projects in the browser. I'd hoped to have had it completed by now, but it's fairly straight-forward, so I'll ask someone else to carry it to completion.
Assignee: markcapella → nobody
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Whiteboard: [ToDo: comment 25] [good first bug][mentor=sgautherie][lang=js]
Comment 30•12 years ago
|
||
File a new bug.
Assignee: nobody → markcapella
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [ToDo: comment 25] [good first bug][mentor=sgautherie][lang=js] → [good first bug][mentor=sgautherie][lang=js]
Reporter | ||
Comment 31•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dão Gottwald [:dao] from comment #30) > File a new bug. Bug 730840
Flags: in-testsuite+
Summary: Use getBrowserURL() in Firefox tests to ease porting them → Use getBrowserURL() in Firefox tests to ease porting them, part 1
Whiteboard: [good first bug][mentor=sgautherie][lang=js]
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•