Closed
Bug 1252870
Opened 5 years ago
Closed 5 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•5 years ago
|
||
Are you going to take this? I filed bug 1252870 and was planning on doing the touch up there.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•5 years ago
|
Blocks: e10s-tests
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 3•5 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•5 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•5 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → jmathies
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 5•5 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•5 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•5 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•5 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•5 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•5 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•5 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•5 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•5 years ago
|
Attachment #8725733 -
Flags: review?(mdeboer) → review+
Comment 12•5 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/dc9c31033281
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 13•5 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/dc9c31033281
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 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
•