Closed Bug 1097311 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

trychooser is missing e10s mochitest-dt, Android mochitest-*, and others

Categories

(Release Engineering :: General, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(e10s+)

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
e10s + ---

People

(Reporter: jlong, Assigned: philor)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

(Keywords: trychooser)

Attachments

(6 files)

How come http://trychooser.pub.build.mozilla.org/ doesn't list mochitest-e10s-{bc,dt,o} as options?
Whiteboard: [kanban:webops:https://kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/4/1852]
Assignee: server-ops-webops → nobody
Component: WebOps: IT-Managed Tools → Tools
Product: Infrastructure & Operations → Release Engineering
QA Contact: nmaul → hwine
Whiteboard: [kanban:webops:https://kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/4/1852]
Keywords: trychooser
e10s test issue.
Blocks: e10s-tests
tracking-e10s: --- → +
Expanding this to also include Android mochitest-16 among other mochitest-* Android suites.
Summary: trychooser is missing e10s mochitest-dt and others → trychooser is missing e10s mochitest-dt, Android mochitest-*, and others
Attached patch s/ipc/e10sSplinter Review
Not what happened under the covers, exactly, but exactly what happened for trychooser's purposes.
Assignee: nobody → philringnalda
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #8539859 - Flags: review?(emorley)
Attachment #8539859 - Flags: review?(emorley) → review+
Attached patch Add e10s-dtSplinter Review
At some point, some poor slob is going to have to rationalize e10s and all the shortcuts in try_parser.py for things like mochitest-dt. I plan to be on vacation when that happens :)
Attachment #8539860 - Flags: review?(emorley)
Doesn't matter how forcefully you specify it in your trysyntax, there aren't any builders for metro-chrome anymore, so it isn't going to happen.
Attachment #8539861 - Flags: review?(emorley)
Attachment #8539860 - Flags: review?(emorley) → review+
Attachment #8539861 - Flags: review?(emorley) → review+
Well, "for all!" until they start to fail too much and we hide it, that being the whole point behind it existing.
Attachment #8539862 - Flags: review?(emorley)
Some people, when faced with the problem of tests that run too slowly, think "I know, I'll use 5, no, 8, no, 12 chunks." Now they have 16 problems.
Attachment #8539865 - Flags: review?(emorley)
Attachment #8539862 - Flags: review?(emorley) → review+
Attachment #8539865 - Flags: review?(emorley) → review+
17 problems, since "-p android-api-11 -u mochitest-gl" but "-p android-api-9 -u mochitest-gl-1,mochitest-gl-2". Farmed that out to bug 1114389.
Bug 964498 thought that it was making it so that if you were pushing from a 33 or later tree, you could ask for -t other_nol64, and if you were pushing from a 32 or earlier tree you could ask for -t other. Indeed you can ask for -t other, but it won't under any circumstances actually run, which is fine since nobody is going to want it to anyway.
Attachment #8539866 - Flags: review?(emorley)
Attachment #8539866 - Flags: review?(emorley) → review+
And I'm done - we're missing a mochitest-1 through mochitest-20 (!) section for b2g, but b2g devs just use -b do -p all -u all -t all, and gecko devs just disable their tests on b2g, so I don't see the need for it.

Thanks for the r's.
Depends on: 1114392
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Component: Tools → General
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: