Closed Bug 1036341 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago
[Session Restore] Discriminate more precisely between new profile and catastrophic crash
Bug 1035557 fixes an issue in which we failed to discriminate between a new profile and a catastrophic crash. However, now that bug 883609 has landed, by tweaking slightly the loading code, we can find this information much more precisely. We need to: - tweak `SessionFile.read` to return one more field `freshProfile` that is `true` if none of the files we attempt to read even exist, or `false` if at least one exists; - tweak `nsSesionStartup._onSessionFileRead` to use this information if `checkpoints` is `null`, by setting `this._previousSessionCrashed` to `false` if `freshProfile` is `true`, or by using `this._initialState` as we currently do if `freshProfile` is `false`.
Marco, please add this to the current iteration
Assignee: nobody → smacleod
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Iteration: --- → 34.1
Points: --- → 3
Added to Iteration 34.1
QA Whiteboard: [qa?]
Hi Steven, can you mark this bug as [qa+] or [qa-] for verification.
QA Whiteboard: [qa?] → [qa+]
QA Contact: cornel.ionce
Comment on attachment 8471079 [details] [diff] [review] Patch - Use the existence of any session files to determine if a profile crashed or is fresh Review of attachment 8471079 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: browser/components/sessionstore/SessionFile.jsm @@ +240,5 @@ > parsed: null > }; > } > > + result["noFilesFound"] = noFilesFound; Maybe result.noFilesFound = ...? That's a little more common in the code base.
Attachment #8471079 - Flags: review?(ttaubert) → review+
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 34
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Iteration: 34.2 → 34.3
QA Whiteboard: [qa+]
Is there any proper way to manually test this fix?
(In reply to Cornel Ionce [QA] from comment #8) > Is there any proper way to manually test this fix? The way this was implemented it shouldn't actually result in a behaviour change, it just makes the code more explicit about why we do things. I don't think we need to verify this. Sorry about the confusion!
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.