Closed
Bug 1257750
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Intermittent e10s browser_input_file_tooltips.js | Test timed out
Categories
(Toolkit :: UI Widgets, defect)
Toolkit
UI Widgets
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: philor, Assigned: Gijs)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: intermittent-failure)
Attachments
(1 file)
MozReview Request: Bug 1257750 - fix intermittent failures in browser_input_file_tooltips.js, r?jaws
58 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
jaws
:
review+
|
Details |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
![]() |
||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Blocks: e10s-tests
tracking-e10s:
--- → +
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
status-firefox47:
--- → affected
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Keywords: leave-open
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
Jared, can you explain a bit why there's 2 mousemoves (to (100, 5) and to (100, 15) ) in the test, and what each of the 2 is supposed to do? The only orange after this commit is on 10.10, and the screenshot looks like this:
http://mozilla-releng-blobs.s3.amazonaws.com/blobs/mozilla-inbound/sha512/51f9cfa8eaf166f0353fdd0f326745464cf339da376d4d9d6376f1752ecb795cb0b4181bace399d530f7ba654f48412c1923c60c4b590500a430bf5804c8084e
which looks like maybe the mouse is ever so slightly too low to trigger the tooltip to show up? Or something?
Flags: needinfo?(jaws)
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
If I remember right, I saw somewhere in MXR that there was a threshold that a mouse needed to move to generate a mousemove event, and I was trying to trigger that. It doesn't have to necessarily move 10 pixels lower, we could adjust it to move 10 pixels in the horizontal axis and it should have the same effect.
Flags: needinfo?(jaws)
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•9 years ago
|
||
This is now top 5-6 orange.
We could potentially switch this test to be more unittest-y and just call the API directly like the other tooltiptextprovider tests are doing, after my e10s refactor. Jared, do you think that's a good idea, or would you prefer to keep the "actual" testing that the tooltip does show up? Meanwhile, I'll do a trypush to test the horizontal move thing from comment #7.
Flags: needinfo?(jaws)
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•9 years ago
|
||
Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/48499/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/48499/
Attachment #8744369 -
Flags: review?(jaws)
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(jaws)
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•9 years ago
|
||
That's green with 20 runs ( https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=e0bd83b967f2&group_state=expanded&exclusion_profile=false ), which compared to the current orange rate seems Pretty Okay.
Assignee: nobody → gijskruitbosch+bugs
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 18•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8744369 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1257750 - fix intermittent failures in browser_input_file_tooltips.js, r?jaws
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/48499/#review45203
Thanks for testing this approach. It would be AWESOME to keep this working through showing the tooltip the way that users would trigger it. Let's use the direct "unit-testy" approach if this attempt fails.
Attachment #8744369 -
Flags: review?(jaws) → review+
Comment 19•9 years ago
|
||
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment 22•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•9 years ago
|
||
There's still a trickle of these. Feels like that setTimeout is causing us grief here. Jared, is there anything else we could use / wait for?
Flags: needinfo?(jaws)
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment 25•9 years ago
|
||
We could double the setTimeout value again? Will that take these down to 0? I don't have other ideas unfortunately, but doubling setTimeout is simple and if it gets us what we want then I think we should do it.
Flags: needinfo?(jaws) → needinfo?(gijskruitbosch+bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jared Wein [:jaws] (please needinfo? me) from comment #25)
> We could double the setTimeout value again? Will that take these down to 0?
> I don't have other ideas unfortunately, but doubling setTimeout is simple
> and if it gets us what we want then I think we should do it.
Done. We can check back in a few days (no use pushing to try, there's too little orange so we'd need too many retriggers to get any kind of confidence).
Flags: needinfo?(gijskruitbosch+bugs)
Comment 28•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Assignee | ||
Comment 29•9 years ago
|
||
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•