Inspect Layout mochitest-chrome tests for e10s compatibility

NEW
Unassigned

Status

()

Core
Layout
2 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: jet, Unassigned, NeedInfo)

Tracking

(Depends on: 15 bugs, Blocks: 1 bug)

Trunk
All
Unspecified
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(e10s+, firefox48 affected)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

2 years ago
Created attachment 8728211 [details]
Full list of tests

Our mochitest-chrome tests are all disabled under e10s. I'm going to needinfo some folks about specific tests in this bug. I'll list the tests in the comments and request confirmation that the tests should be enabled under e10s. Enabling for e10s may require that the test be modified [1].

In the attached text file, I listed the tests in this format:
path/to/test.file
bug# Y? or N? name

The first line is the test file that needs inspection.
The next line has the following info:
1. original bug that added the test 
2. Y? initial inspection indicates that the test needs to run under e10s
   N? initial inspection indicates that the test doesn't need to run under e10s
3. name of the engineer I'm asking to confirm Y or N, and modify the test as needed.

Please file separate bugs for test modification patches that block this bug.

[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/e10s_test_tips
(Reporter)

Comment 1

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug1018265.xul
bug 1018265 Y? smaug

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug533845.xul
bug 533845 Y? smaug

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug551434.html
bug 551434 Y? smaug

layout/xul/test/test_bug381167.xhtml
bug 381167 Y? smaug

layout/forms/test/test_bug536567_perwindowpb.html
bug 536567 N? smaug

layout/generic/test/test_bug514732-2.xul
bug 514732 N? smaug
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
(Reporter)

Comment 2

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug370436.html
bug 370436 Y? dholbert

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug458898.html
bug 458898 N? dholbert

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug495648.xul
bug 495648 Y? dholbert

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug504311.xul
bug 504311 N? dholbert

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug514660.xul
bug 514660 N? dholbert

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug847890_paintFlashing.html
bug 847890 N? dholbert

layout/xul/test/test_resizer.xul
bug 407616 Y? dholbert

layout/xul/test/test_stack.xul
bug 510335 N? dholbert
Flags: needinfo?(dholbert)
(Reporter)

Comment 3

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug396367-1.html
bug 396367 N? trevor

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug396367-2.html
bug 396367 N? trevor
Flags: needinfo?(tbsaunde+mozbugs)
(Reporter)

Comment 4

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug1041200.xul
bug 1041200 Y? mattwoodrow

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug812817.xul
bug 812817 Y? mattwoodrow
Flags: needinfo?(matt.woodrow)
(Reporter)

Comment 5

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_chrome_content_integration.xul
bug 532569 Y? mats

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_dialog_with_positioning.html
bug 802457 Y? mats

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_passpointerevents.html
bug 796452 Y? mats

layout/xul/test/test_bug372685.xul
bug 372685 N? mats

layout/xul/test/test_bug393970.xul
bug 393970 N? mats

layout/xul/test/test_bug398982-1.xul
bug 398982 N? mats

layout/xul/test/test_bug398982-2.xul
bug 398982 N? mats

layout/xul/test/test_windowminmaxsize.xul
bug 357725 Y? mats
Flags: needinfo?(mats)
(Reporter)

Comment 6

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_printpreview.xul
bug 501100 Y? tobytailor

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_printpreview_bug396024.xul
bug 396024 Y? tobytailor

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_printpreview_bug482976.xul
bug 482976 Y? tobytailor

layout/generic/test/test_bug632379.xul
bug 632379 Y? tobytailor
Flags: needinfo?(tschneider)
(Reporter)

Comment 7

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug708062.html
bug 708062 Y? tn

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_default_background.xul
bug 574621 Y? tn

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_leaf_layers_partition_browser_window.xul
bug 1114710 Y? tn

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_no_clip_iframe.xul
bug 699351 Y? tn

layout/xul/test/test_popupZoom.xul
bug 1143974 Y? tn

layout/style/test/chrome/test_hover.html
bug 593262 Y? tn

layout/xul/test/test_bug467442.xul
bug 467442 N? tn

layout/xul/test/test_popupReflowPos.xul
bug 1130400 Y? tn
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
(Reporter)

Comment 8

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_fixed_bg_scrolling_repaints.html
bug 1000875 N? mstange

layout/generic/test/test_bug469613.xul
bug 469613 Y? mstange

layout/generic/test/test_bug469774.xul
bug 469774 Y? mstange
Flags: needinfo?(mstange)
(Reporter)

Comment 9

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_transformed_scrolling_repaints.html
bug 1243589 N? kats

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_transformed_scrolling_repaints_2.html
bug 1243589 N? kats

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_transformed_scrolling_repaints_3.html
bug 1243589 N? kats
Flags: needinfo?(bugmail.mozilla)
(Reporter)

Comment 10

2 years ago
layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug708874.css
bug 708874 N? dbaron

layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug708874.xul
bug 708874 N? dbaron

layout/style/test/chrome/test_bug535806.xul
bug 535806 Y? dbaron

layout/style/test/chrome/test_moz_document_rules.html
bug 398962 N? dbaron

layout/generic/test/test_bug508115.xul
bug 508115 N? dbaron
Flags: needinfo?(dbaron)
(Reporter)

Comment 11

2 years ago
layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug467669.css
bug 467669 N? jkew

layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug467669.xul
bug 467669 N? jkew

layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug695639.css
bug 695639 N? jkew

layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug695639.xul
bug 695639 N? jkew
Flags: needinfo?(jfkthame)
(Reporter)

Comment 12

2 years ago
layout/xul/test/test_bug159346.xul
bug 159346 Y? masayuki

layout/generic/test/test_selection_underline.html
bug 338209 N? masayuki

layout/xul/test/test_bug703150.xul
bug 703150 Y? masayuki
Flags: needinfo?(masayuki)
(Reporter)

Comment 13

2 years ago
layout/xul/test/test_bug477754.xul
bug 477754 N? ehsan

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_scroll_selection_into_view.html
bug 949445 Y? ehsan

layout/generic/test/test_backspace_delete.xul
bug 1034337 N? ehsan

layout/generic/test/test_bug348681.html
bug 348681 N? ehsan
Flags: needinfo?(ehsan)
(Reporter)

Comment 14

2 years ago
layout/xul/test/test_bug987230.xul
bug 987230 Y? gijs 

layout/xul/test/test_submenuClose.xul
bug 1181560 Y? gijs
Flags: needinfo?(gijskruitbosch+bugs)
(Reporter)

Comment 15

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_prerendered_transforms.html
bug 805330 N? gfritzsche

layout/base/tests/chrome/test_scrolling_repaints.html
bug 805330 N? gfritzsche
Flags: needinfo?(gfritzsche)
(Reporter)

Comment 16

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug420499.xul
bug 420499 Y? cpearce
Flags: needinfo?(cpearce)
(Reporter)

Comment 17

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_chrome_over_plugin.xul
bug 1109424 Y? dvander
Flags: needinfo?(dvander)
(Reporter)

Comment 18

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_passpointerevents_dynamic.html
bug 1101029 N? sicking
Flags: needinfo?(jonas)
(Reporter)

Comment 19

2 years ago
layout/base/tests/chrome/test_will_change.html
bug 940842 N? benwa
Flags: needinfo?(bgirard)
(Reporter)

Comment 20

2 years ago
layout/forms/test/test_bug665540.html
bug 665540 Y? karlt
Flags: needinfo?(karlt)
(Reporter)

Comment 21

2 years ago
layout/generic/test/test_selection_preventDefault.html
bug 820660 Y? sc
Flags: needinfo?(schien)
(Reporter)

Comment 22

2 years ago
layout/xul/test/test_popupSizeTo.xul
bug 807571 Y? markh
Flags: needinfo?(markh)
(Reporter)

Comment 23

2 years ago
layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug727834.css
727834 N? heycam

layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug727834.xul
bug 727834 N? heycam

layout/style/test/chrome/test_addSheet.html
bug 1024707 Y? heycam

layout/style/test/chrome/test_additional_sheets.html
bug 737003 Y? heycam

layout/style/test/chrome/test_author_specified_style.html
bug 743392 N? heycam

layout/style/test/chrome/test_bug1157097.html
bug 1157097 N? heycam

layout/style/test/chrome/test_bug1160724.xul
bug 1160724 N? heycam

layout/style/test/chrome/test_bug418986-2.xul
bug 418986 N? heycam
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Blocks: 984139
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #7)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug708062.html
> bug 708062 Y? tn

Y. This was written a mochitest-chrome because it needs to change the fullzoom. It should be ported to mochitest-plain and a SpecialPowers api to set the full zoom should be added if there isn't one already.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_default_background.xul
> bug 574621 Y? tn

Y. window.open works differently in mochitest-chrome, I _think_ it lets you specify a xul file to be the chrome of the new window (not loaded as a document inside the window). Somehow that will need to be able to be done in another test suite.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_leaf_layers_partition_browser_window.xul
> bug 1114710 Y? tn

Y. We want an e10s browser to also have its layers partition the browser window.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_no_clip_iframe.xul
> bug 699351 Y? tn

Y. Same reason as test_default_background.xul

> layout/xul/test/test_popupZoom.xul
> bug 1143974 Y? tn

N. I don't think we are ever planning on supporting any sort of XUL popups opening cross process.

> layout/style/test/chrome/test_hover.html
> bug 593262 Y? tn

Y. Hover needs to be test cross-process too. I moved this to chrome to avoid a specific problem. Likely there are better ways to avoid it.

> layout/xul/test/test_bug467442.xul
> bug 467442 N? tn

N. This specific test is testing an in-process only situation. But code that handles auto-complete for e10s should test that it works on transformed forms elements (I don't know that code so I don't know if that's true now or not.)

> layout/xul/test/test_popupReflowPos.xul
> bug 1130400 Y? tn

N. Testing an in-process situation only.
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #12)
> layout/generic/test/test_selection_underline.html
> bug 338209 N? masayuki

N. Yeah, unnecessary because it test only painting result of composition string.

> layout/xul/test/test_bug159346.xul
> bug 159346 Y? masayuki
> 
> layout/xul/test/test_bug703150.xul
> bug 703150 Y? masayuki

N. They are testing scrollbar's behavior with synthesized mouse events. Therefore, I don't think that we need to run them in e10s mode because mouse events are dispatched in the content process synchronously. I.e., there is no difference between non-e10s and e10s except accessing the instance of LookAndFeel from scrollbar's implementation. (If this different should be tested in e10s mode, please mark them as Y)
Flags: needinfo?(masayuki)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #17)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_chrome_over_plugin.xul
> bug 1109424 Y? dvander

Y. This bug could only happen under APZ (i.e. E10S)
Flags: needinfo?(dvander)

Comment 27

2 years ago
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #14)
> layout/xul/test/test_bug987230.xul
> bug 987230 Y? gijs 

This is a test about clicking XUL popup anchors to dismiss those popups. It specifically deals with cases where clicks should be consumed on an ancestor of the 'actual' anchor of the popup.

Because we don't and can't have XUL popups in e10s mode, I don't think this test could run in e10s, nor do I think it should be updated to do so. It should continue running in non-e10s mode.

> layout/xul/test/test_submenuClose.xul
> bug 1181560 Y? gijs

This tests collapsing behaviour of submenus when navigating between them. Again, because we don't support (menu)popups from the child process, I don't think we can convert this to run in e10s mode, so we shouldn't bother. We should continue to run it in non-e10s mode.
Flags: needinfo?(gijskruitbosch+bugs)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #15)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_prerendered_transforms.html
> bug 805330 N? gfritzsche
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_scrolling_repaints.html
> bug 805330 N? gfritzsche

These are test coverage for plugin layout / redraw behavior.
We probably need them to run, but i can't judge how this should behave with e10s.
Flags: needinfo?(gfritzsche)

Comment 29

2 years ago
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #13)
> layout/xul/test/test_bug477754.xul
> bug 477754 N? ehsan

This is a XUL test.  I've been told that we don't run XUL in the content process.  If that is true, then we don't need to run it in e10s.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_scroll_selection_into_view.html
> bug 949445 Y? ehsan

This should be ported to be a mochitest-plain test, I guess, so that it runs in both e10s and non-e10s.  Bug 1254985.

> layout/generic/test/test_backspace_delete.xul
> bug 1034337 N? ehsan

This test is completely disabled in both e10s and non-e10s mode, apparently because it's buggy in e10s mode, and Masayuki has done some investigation in bug 1163311.  Please reach out to him.  We should run it in both e10s and non-e10s mode, and port it to not use XUL.

> layout/generic/test/test_bug348681.html
> bug 348681 N? ehsan

This should be ported to mochitest-plain as well.  Bug 1254991.
Flags: needinfo?(ehsan)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #9)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_transformed_scrolling_repaints.html
> bug 1243589 N? kats
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_transformed_scrolling_repaints_2.html
> bug 1243589 N? kats
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_transformed_scrolling_repaints_3.html
> bug 1243589 N? kats

I believe all of these do need testing under e10s, and from a quick inspection they look like they could be converted to mochitest-plain. I'll file a bug to do that.
Flags: needinfo?(bugmail.mozilla)

Updated

2 years ago
Depends on: 1255023

Updated

2 years ago
Depends on: 1255029

Updated

2 years ago
Depends on: 1255035

Updated

2 years ago
Depends on: 1255043

Updated

2 years ago
Depends on: 1255045
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #1)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug1018265.xul
> bug 1018265 Y? smaug
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug533845.xul
> bug 533845 Y? smaug
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug551434.html
> bug 551434 Y? smaug
filed bugs


> 
> layout/xul/test/test_bug381167.xhtml
> bug 381167 Y? smaug
N. This is XUL only thingie

> 
> layout/forms/test/test_bug536567_perwindowpb.html
> bug 536567 N? smaug
Y.
filed a bug

> 
> layout/generic/test/test_bug514732-2.xul
> bug 514732 N? smaug
Y
filed a bug
Flags: needinfo?(bugs)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #11)

> layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug467669.xul
> bug 467669 N? jkew
Y.

> layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug695639.xul
> bug 695639 N? jkew
Y.

ISTM that we do want these tests to run under e10s; they test the inDOMUtils.getUsedFontFaces API that is the basis for the font-inspector panel in devtools, as well as any add-ons, etc, that may want to expose details of the fonts used. And given that this is an API specifically intended to let chrome query something about content, it seems worth testing in the e10s world.

The getUsedFontFaces API is chrome-only, IIRC, so these need to remain mochitest-chrome. As of now, they seem to run successfully with e10s, anyway. (At least, running them with ./mach mochitest --e10s ...) works for me.)

So do we need to do anything more, or is it sufficient to simply enable them as-is?
Flags: needinfo?(jfkthame)
(In reply to Jonathan Kew (:jfkthame) from comment #32)
> The getUsedFontFaces API is chrome-only, IIRC, so these need to remain
> mochitest-chrome. As of now, they seem to run successfully with e10s,
> anyway. (At least, running them with ./mach mochitest --e10s ...) works for
> me.)

The --e10s flag is ignored when running Mochitest chrome. Mochitest chrome tests cannot be run with e10s.  (This is misleading, and I have filed bug 1255095 to try to address it somehow.) If a test uses a chrome-only API, then you can use SpecialPowers to access it, or write a browser chrome test. This assumes it can be called from the content process. If it can only be called from the parent process, it is possible to use SpecialPowers.loadChromeScript() to run a script in the parent process.
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #8)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_fixed_bg_scrolling_repaints.html
> bug 1000875 N? mstange

Y. This test should be converted into an invalidation reftest that can be run under e10s. Filed bug 1255100.

> layout/generic/test/test_bug469613.xul
> bug 469613 Y? mstange

Y. This test needs to be converted into a mochitest that can be run under e10s. Filed bug 1255103.

> layout/generic/test/test_bug469774.xul
> bug 469774 Y? mstange

N. This test requires XUL popups and must run in the parent process.
Flags: needinfo?(mstange)
Depends on: 1255113
(In reply to Andrew McCreight [:mccr8] from comment #33)
> (In reply to Jonathan Kew (:jfkthame) from comment #32)
> > The getUsedFontFaces API is chrome-only, IIRC, so these need to remain
> > mochitest-chrome. As of now, they seem to run successfully with e10s,
> > anyway. (At least, running them with ./mach mochitest --e10s ...) works for
> > me.)
> 
> The --e10s flag is ignored when running Mochitest chrome. Mochitest chrome
> tests cannot be run with e10s.  (This is misleading, and I have filed bug
> 1255095 to try to address it somehow.) 

Ah, thanks. No wonder it apparently "worked", then. :)

> If a test uses a chrome-only API,
> then you can use SpecialPowers to access it, or write a browser chrome test.
> This assumes it can be called from the content process. If it can only be
> called from the parent process, it is possible to use
> SpecialPowers.loadChromeScript() to run a script in the parent process.

OK, sounds like that's what we need to do here. Filed bug 1255113.
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #5)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_chrome_content_integration.xul
> bug 532569 Y? mats

N. this test is about XUL iframes in content documents, which
I assume we don't intend to support in e10s (?)

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_dialog_with_positioning.html
> bug 802457 Y? mats

N. This tests layout inside an intrinsic size XUL popup window.
We don't need to test that in e10s.  Maybe we should write
a similar test for whatever we use for popups in e10s though.

> layout/xul/test/test_bug372685.xul
> bug 372685 N? mats

N. crashtest for XUL popup menus

> layout/xul/test/test_bug393970.xul
> bug 393970 N? mats

N. XUL <grid> test

> layout/xul/test/test_bug398982-1.xul
> bug 398982 N? mats

N. crashtest for XUL <tooltip>

> layout/xul/test/test_bug398982-2.xul
> bug 398982 N? mats

N. crashtest for XUL <tooltip>

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_passpointerevents.html
> bug 796452 Y? mats

Test 'mozpasspointerevents' for IFRAMEs in chrome windows.
I'm not sure if that's relevant/possible to test in e10s mode.

> layout/xul/test/test_windowminmaxsize.xul
> bug 357725 Y? mats

Test support for minwidth/minheight/maxwidth/maxheight
attributes on a <xul:window>.
I'm not sure if that's relevant/possible to test in e10s mode.

Maybe Neil Deakin can help you with the last two?
Flags: needinfo?(mats)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #3)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug396367-1.html
> bug 396367 N? trevor
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug396367-2.html
> bug 396367 N? trevor

these are tnikkel's tests, forwarding ni?
Flags: needinfo?(tbsaunde+mozbugs) → needinfo?(tnikkel)
Depends on: 1255180
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #2)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug370436.html
> bug 370436 Y? dholbert

Y. Testing spell-checker interactivity & context menus. I can imagine e10s-specific breakage.
Filed bug 1255180.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug458898.html
> bug 458898 N? dholbert

N. Testing openDialog API, which is only available to privileged scripts (i.e. probably parent-process only).

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug495648.xul
> bug 495648 Y? dholbert

N. Testing a XUL feature, and XUL isn't enabled in the e10s child process.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug504311.xul
> bug 504311 N? dholbert

N. Testing a XUL feature, and XUL isn't enabled in the e10s child process.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug514660.xul
> bug 514660 N? dholbert

N. This was a crash during a restyle, & doesn't really need e10s-specific coverage.

> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug847890_paintFlashing.html
> bug 847890 N? dholbert

N. Testing paint flashing being set on a specific document; seems possible but unlikely that this would break in an e10s-specific way.

> layout/xul/test/test_resizer.xul
> bug 407616 Y? dholbert

N. Testing a XUL feature (the <resizer> element), and XUL isn't enabled in the e10s child process.

> layout/xul/test/test_stack.xul
> bug 510335 N? dholbert

N. Testing a XUL feature (the <stack> element), and XUL isn't enabled in the e10s child process.
Flags: needinfo?(dholbert)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #22)
> layout/xul/test/test_popupSizeTo.xul
> bug 807571 Y? markh

N. I don't think it is important that this test run under e10s - it is exercising code that is always in the parent and the relevant code never looks at content. For this reason I'd also be surprised if it failed in e10s.
Flags: needinfo?(markh)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #4)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug1041200.xul
> bug 1041200 Y? mattwoodrow

Y. Testing that fullzoom changes invalidate correctly. We only access contentDocument of the iframe, so this should (and does) work fine under e10s.

> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug812817.xul
> bug 812817 Y? mattwoodrow

N. Opens a XUL popup, I don't think this will ever work for e10s.
Flags: needinfo?(matt.woodrow)
(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #37)
> (In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #3)
> > layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug396367-1.html
> > bug 396367 N? trevor

N. The problem all happens in one process, doesn't need e10s testing. It's in chrome because the test needs to change textZoom.

> > layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug396367-2.html
> > bug 396367 N? trevor

N. Same.
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #21)
> layout/generic/test/test_selection_preventDefault.html
> bug 820660 Y? sc

Y, This test needs to be converted into a mochitest that can be run under e10s. Filed bug 1255262.
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #20)
> layout/forms/test/test_bug665540.html
> bug 665540 Y? karlt

N. This is a regression test for a bug that was in widget code.  That code only runs in the parent process and is independent of whether the select is in content or chrome.
Flags: needinfo?(karlt)
Flags: needinfo?(schien)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #19)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_will_change.html
> bug 940842 N? benwa

Y. although if it passes as a non-e10s test then it's very likely to pass as an e10s test. I'm not sure if the helper functions I use are e10s compatible or not. It wouldn't be a big issue however if we didn't run this in e10s.
Flags: needinfo?(bgirard)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_printpreview.xul
> bug 501100 Y? tobytailor
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_printpreview_bug396024.xul
> bug 396024 Y? tobytailor
> 
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_printpreview_bug482976.xul
> bug 482976 Y? tobytailor

N. These test all require XUL popups and AFAIK should therefore run in the parent process.
Flags: needinfo?(tschneider)
Depends on: 1256210
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #23)
> layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug727834.css
> 727834 N? heycam
>
> layout/inspector/tests/chrome/test_bug727834.xul
> bug 727834 N? heycam

N.  These are testing DOMUtils.parseStyleSheet() which is in process.

> layout/style/test/chrome/test_addSheet.html
> bug 1024707 Y? heycam

N.  This tests nsIStyleSheetService.preloadSheet, which behaves the same in the parent and the content process, so there shouldn't be a need to test this in e10s mode specifically.

> layout/style/test/chrome/test_additional_sheets.html
> bug 737003 Y? heycam

Y.  This tests nsIStyleSheetService.{loadAndRegisterSheet,unregisterSheet}, which do behave differently if called in the parent or content process.

> layout/style/test/chrome/test_author_specified_style.html
> bug 743392 N? heycam

N.  This tests the [ChromeOnly] CSSStyleDeclaration.getAuthoredPropertyValue, which shouldn't work differently in e10s/non-e10s.

> layout/style/test/chrome/test_bug1157097.html
> bug 1157097 N? heycam

N.  This is testing nsIDOMWindowUtils.postRestyleSelfEvent which doesn't have any e10s considerations.

> layout/style/test/chrome/test_bug1160724.xul
> bug 1160724 N? heycam

N.  This is testing that we don't report an error to the browser console due to some specific UA style rules.

> layout/style/test/chrome/test_bug418986-2.xul
> bug 418986 N? heycam

N.  This is just testing the effect of the privacy.resistFingerprinting pref in content.
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_passpointerevents_dynamic.html
> bug 1101029 N? sicking

No. It looks like this is a B2G-only feature that was never intended to be exposed to the web. So I don't think we should worry about making it work for e10s.
Flags: needinfo?(jonas)
Flags: needinfo?(dholbert)
Depends on: 1261500
Depends on: 1261501
Depends on: 1261502
Depends on: 1261504
Depends on: 1261507
Depends on: 1261510
Depends on: 1261513
Depends on: 1261514
No longer depends on: 1261513
No longer depends on: 1261514
(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #36)
> (In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #5)
> > layout/base/tests/chrome/test_passpointerevents.html
> > bug 796452 Y? mats
> 
> Test 'mozpasspointerevents' for IFRAMEs in chrome windows.
> I'm not sure if that's relevant/possible to test in e10s mode.
> 
> > layout/xul/test/test_windowminmaxsize.xul
> > bug 357725 Y? mats
> 
> Test support for minwidth/minheight/maxwidth/maxheight
> attributes on a <xul:window>.
> I'm not sure if that's relevant/possible to test in e10s mode.
> 
> Maybe Neil Deakin can help you with the last two?

enn: per Mats' request here, could you make a call about whether these two tests are relevant to convert so that they're testable in e10s mode?
Flags: needinfo?(enndeakin)
Depends on: 1261517
Depends on: 1261518
(I went through and made sure that we've got a blocking bug filed for every "Y" answer here, BTW.)
Flags: needinfo?(dholbert)

Comment 50

2 years ago
test_windowminmaxsize.xul can run without e10s.
Flags: needinfo?(enndeakin)
(In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #16)
> layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug420499.xul
> bug 420499 Y? cpearce

I can run test_bug420499.xul successfully under e10s with the following command:

./mach mochitest --e10s layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug420499.xul

So I think we're good to turn it on in e10s.
Flags: needinfo?(cpearce)
--e10s doesn't do anything useful for mochitest-chrome.
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #52)
> --e10s doesn't do anything useful for mochitest-chrome.

Thank you.


(In reply to Chris Pearce (:cpearce) from comment #51)
> (In reply to Jet Villegas (:jet) from comment #16)
> > layout/base/tests/chrome/test_bug420499.xul
> > bug 420499 Y? cpearce

This tests that when a content text box is focused the caret appears, and when a xul pop up opens the caret disappears, and when the pop up disappears, the caret re-appears in its previous location, and then that if a tooltip pops up, the caret remains visible.

This test is xul specific, but I think testing that the caret is behaving as expected in e10s when chrome gets focus is something that we should have a regression test for.

so:

Y. We should rewrite the test so that we have coverage for the caret behaving as expected when chrome process gets focus, including when tooltips pop up in chrome.
Depends on: 1261745

Updated

2 years ago
tracking-e10s: --- → +
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.