Closed Bug 1239678 Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago

Mach artifact builds are half-broken on Windows due to missing browsercomps.dll

Categories

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(firefox46 fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla46
Tracking Status
firefox46 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: Gijs, Assigned: Gijs)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Because this list of patterns:

    package_artifact_patterns = {
        'firefox/dependentlibs.list',
        'firefox/platform.ini',
        'firefox/application.ini',
        'firefox/*.dll',
        'firefox/*.exe',
    }

does not match firefox/browser/components/browsercomps.dll

but even adding 'firefox/**/*.dll' doesn't help because the basename modification that bug 1238320 made means we'll install it in the root of the install dir, instead of in browser/components/ where it belongs.
It would be quite neat if we could write some kind of test for these builds actually working...
Assignee: nobody → gijskruitbosch+bugs
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #8707870 - Flags: review?(nalexander) → review+
Comment on attachment 8707870 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1239678 - fix dll inclusion pattern on Windows and the placement of nested dlls like browsercomps and clearkey, r?nalexander

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/30899/#review27699

Oops.  Thanks Gijs!
(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #2)
> It would be quite neat if we could write some kind of test for these builds
> actually working...

Sorry about the fallout here -- I should have checked with someone before landing this instead of assuming the testing I did was sufficient.
(In reply to Chris Manchester [:chmanchester] from comment #5)
> (In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #2)
> > It would be quite neat if we could write some kind of test for these builds
> > actually working...
> 
> Sorry about the fallout here -- I should have checked with someone before
> landing this instead of assuming the testing I did was sufficient.

No worries. We should really have tests for this.

Nick, can we stand this up as a taskcluster-type job that depends on a regular build having happened, or something, and smoketest that it starts and loads about:home or something? Would probably be good input into bug 1237688 anyway. Or is there a reason that's not a good idea? I might be able to look into it next week.
Flags: needinfo?(nalexander)
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8017627448ca
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla46
(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #6)
> (In reply to Chris Manchester [:chmanchester] from comment #5)
> > (In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #2)
> > > It would be quite neat if we could write some kind of test for these builds
> > > actually working...
> > 
> > Sorry about the fallout here -- I should have checked with someone before
> > landing this instead of assuming the testing I did was sufficient.
> 
> No worries. We should really have tests for this.
> 
> Nick, can we stand this up as a taskcluster-type job that depends on a
> regular build having happened, or something, and smoketest that it starts
> and loads about:home or something? Would probably be good input into bug
> 1237688 anyway. Or is there a reason that's not a good idea? I might be able
> to look into it next week.

This is not really easy, given the 3 platforms and the fact that some builds and tests are driven out of buildbot.  However, I've filed Bug 1240149 to track it.
Flags: needinfo?(nalexander)
Product: Core → Firefox Build System
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.