Closed
Bug 1252870
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Unveiled failing assertions uncovered bug in plugin blocking
Categories
(Firefox :: General, defect)
Firefox
General
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Firefox 47
People
(Reporter: mikedeboer, Assigned: jimm)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
As explained in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1241930#c11:
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/diff/103700d6b355/browser/base/content/test/plugins/browser_blocking.js#l1.354
Which Jim introduced in bug 1129040: the return value of ContentTask.spawn is _always_ true-ish, because it returns a Promise; a `yield` was omitted.
`result` is expected to be `true`, but it's not.
See https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=266edacc9b37
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Are you going to take this? I filed bug 1252870 and was planning on doing the touch up there.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•9 years ago
|
Blocks: e10s-tests
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #2)
> Are you going to take this? I filed bug 1252870 and was planning on doing
> the touch up there.
s/bug 1252870/bug 1252681
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #2)
> > Are you going to take this? I filed bug 1252870 and was planning on doing
> > the touch up there.
>
> s/bug 1252870/bug 1252681
Ah sorry, I didn't see you filed it! I don't think it'd be as efficient if I took this...
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → jmathies
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/37611/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/37611/
Attachment #8725733 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8725733 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1252870 - Fixup a couple buggy plugin related browser chrome tests. r=mikedeboer
hmm, there a mismatch in what one of these checks looks for and a comment.
Attachment #8725733 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8725733 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1252870 - Fixup a couple buggy plugin related browser chrome tests. r=mikedeboer
Review request updated; see interdiff: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/37611/diff/1-2/
Attachment #8725733 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer)
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8725733 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1252870 - Fixup a couple buggy plugin related browser chrome tests. r=mikedeboer
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/37611/#review34177
Thanks, that was quick! :) Almost there...
::: browser/base/content/test/plugins/browser_blocking.js:350
(Diff revision 2)
> - ok(result, "Plugin should be activated.");
> + ok(!result, "Plugin should be activated.");
The big question here is that I'd expect this be `true` analogous to `objectLoadingContent.activated`. Can you explain this discrepency? If this really is correct, can you add a comment here with the explanation?
Attachment #8725733 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike de Boer [:mikedeboer] from comment #8)
> Comment on attachment 8725733 [details]
> MozReview Request: Bug 1252870 - Fixup a couple buggy plugin related browser
> chrome tests. r?mikedeboer
>
> https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/37611/#review34177
>
> Thanks, that was quick! :) Almost there...
>
> ::: browser/base/content/test/plugins/browser_blocking.js:350
> (Diff revision 2)
> > - ok(result, "Plugin should be activated.");
> > + ok(!result, "Plugin should be activated.");
>
> The big question here is that I'd expect this be `true` analogous to
> `objectLoadingContent.activated`. Can you explain this discrepency? If this
> really is correct, can you add a comment here with the explanation?
It should be false, the plugin was blocklisted in this particular test case. I can update that text message to reflect that.
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #9)
> It should be false, the plugin was blocklisted in this particular test case.
> I can update that text message to reflect that.
Pfew! That'd be nice. r=me with that change!
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8725733 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1252870 - Fixup a couple buggy plugin related browser chrome tests. r=mikedeboer
Review request updated; see interdiff: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/37611/diff/2-3/
Attachment #8725733 -
Attachment description: MozReview Request: Bug 1252870 - Fixup a couple buggy plugin related browser chrome tests. r?mikedeboer → MozReview Request: Bug 1252870 - Fixup a couple buggy plugin related browser chrome tests. r=mikedeboer
Attachment #8725733 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8725733 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer) → review+
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 13•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 47
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•