1210609 - Content corrupted (sometimes) when using service workers

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Core :: DOM: Service Workers, defect)

Description

[Marcos Caceres [:marcosc]]

Attachment: Screenshot 2015-09-23 22.40.30.png

On occasion, content being served out of the service worker becomes corrupted and the attached is shown. Only limited information is displayed in the browser's error console. 

Ehsan made me file this bug, even tho I don't have a test case.

Comment 1

[Marcos Caceres [:marcosc]]

(the XHTML part of the screenshot attached is a joke, btw... but the top part is not)

Comment 2

[Ben Kelly [:bkelly, not reviewing]]

My guess is the app code is passing a rejected promise to FetchEvent.respondWith().  We probably just need to add a new error code and log message for this case:

  https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/workers/ServiceWorkerEvents.cpp#398

Comment 3

[(no longer active)]

Oh, yes, of course.  That makes sense.

Comment 4

[(no longer active)]

Attachment: Dirty hack to show a "remote XUL" error in the case we suspect to be happening here

Marcos, can you please apply this patch to Firefox to see if the error message changes to complain about remote XUL?  If the answer is yes, this confirms Ben's theory.

Comment 5

[Ben Kelly [:bkelly, not reviewing]]

Ehsan, I think Marcos already told me over twitter he's getting that error message.  The problem is that error code can also get triggered if an unexpected internal error occurs.  The rejected promise should really have a separate error code.

Comment 6

[Marcos Caceres [:marcosc]]

(In reply to Ben Kelly [:bkelly] from comment #5)
> Ehsan, I think Marcos already told me over twitter he's getting that error
> message.  The problem is that error code can also get triggered if an
> unexpected internal error occurs.  The rejected promise should really have a
> separate error code.

... and a nice message to go with it? :)

Comment 7

[(no longer active)]

(In reply to Marcos Caceres [:marcosc] from comment #6)
> (In reply to Ben Kelly [:bkelly] from comment #5)
> > Ehsan, I think Marcos already told me over twitter he's getting that error
> > message.  The problem is that error code can also get triggered if an
> > unexpected internal error occurs.  The rejected promise should really have a
> > separate error code.
> 
> ... and a nice message to go with it? :)

Done in bug 1212636.

Comment 8

[(no longer active)]

Our suspicion was right, this is indeed caused by a rejected promise being passed to respondWith.