Closed Bug 1002600 Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago

Intermittent dom/mobilemessage/tests/test_mms_pdu_helper.js | Test timed out


(Firefox OS Graveyard :: RIL, defect)

Gonk (Firefox OS)
Not set


(firefox31 unaffected, firefox32 fixed, firefox33 fixed, firefox-esr24 unaffected, b2g-v1.3 unaffected, b2g-v1.3T unaffected, b2g-v1.4 fixed, b2g-v2.0 fixed, b2g-v2.1 fixed)

2.0 S5 (4july)
Tracking Status
firefox31 --- unaffected
firefox32 --- fixed
firefox33 --- fixed
firefox-esr24 --- unaffected
b2g-v1.3 --- unaffected
b2g-v1.3T --- unaffected
b2g-v1.4 --- fixed
b2g-v2.0 --- fixed
b2g-v2.1 --- fixed


(Reporter: RyanVM, Assigned: vicamo)



(Keywords: intermittent-failure, Whiteboard: [p=1])


(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

b2g_emulator_vm b2g-inbound opt test xpcshell on 2014-04-28 06:48:30 PDT for push ac5d447ee498
slave: tst-linux64-spot-966

06:56:45     INFO -  TEST-INFO | /builds/slave/test/build/tests/xpcshell/tests/dom/mobilemessage/tests/test_mms_pdu_helper.js | running test ...
07:01:45  WARNING -  TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | /builds/slave/test/build/tests/xpcshell/tests/dom/mobilemessage/tests/test_mms_pdu_helper.js | Test timed out
07:01:46     INFO -  TEST-PASS | /builds/slave/test/build/tests/xpcshell/tests/dom/mobilemessage/tests/test_mms_pdu_helper.js | test passed (time: 300695.828ms)
Assignee: nobody → vyang
Blocks: b2g-xpcshell
Whiteboard: [p=1]
Target Milestone: --- → 2.0 S5 (4july)
Many of the MMS PDU encoder/decoder tests use for-loop to try every possible case.  We have 24 such for loops and each of them iterates 256 times, so we have 6K test runs introduced by these loops. By checking edge conditions instead, the tests slimmed down to around 1/25, and total execution time is shorten from 15s to 6s.
Attachment #8443883 - Flags: review?(gene.lian)
Comment on attachment 8443883 [details] [diff] [review]

Review of attachment 8443883 [details] [diff] [review]:

Looks good to me but could you add some simple comment in the codes for why you use these specific numbers?
Attachment #8443883 - Flags: review?(gene.lian) → review+
(In reply to Gene Lian [:gene] (business trip Jun. 16 ~ Jun. 20) from comment #5)
> Looks good to me but could you add some simple comment in the codes for why
> you use these specific numbers?

They're boundary numbers.  For example, usually we have valid codes 128 & 129, so I test 0, 1, 127, 128, 129, 130, and 255.
Yes, I know. Just hope you can add some comment for this intention so that others can follow you when looking at the codes. ;)
Attached patch patch : v2Splinter Review
Add comments for those magic numbers used.
Attachment #8443883 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8444994 - Flags: review+
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.