add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 56

Status

()

Firefox
Search
P1
normal
RESOLVED FIXED
4 months ago
8 days ago

People

(Reporter: florian, Assigned: mconley)

Tracking

(Blocks: 2 bugs)

unspecified
Firefox 56
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
qe-verify -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox56 fixed)

Details

(Whiteboard: [photon-performance] [fxsearch])

MozReview Requests

()

Submitter Diff Changes Open Issues Last Updated
Loading...
Error loading review requests:

Attachments

(3 attachments, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Marco Bonardo [::mak] from bug 1353563 comment #12)

> r=me with at least a bug filed to add a test measuring flushes for a simple
> location bar search. It should be trivial using
> promiseAutocompleteResultPopup

Updated

4 months ago
Blocks: 1353725

Comment 1

4 months ago
ah there is one pitfall here though, I think Mike said we can measure only synchronous operations, but most of the awesomebar is async :\ Maybe we could replace the awesomebar search component with a custom synchronous component.

Updated

4 months ago
Flags: qe-verify?
Priority: -- → P2
Whiteboard: [photon-performance][fxsearch] → [photon-performance] [fxsearch]
Flags: qe-verify? → qe-verify-
(Assignee)

Updated

4 months ago
No longer blocks: 1354194
(Assignee)

Updated

4 months ago
Depends on: 1363507

Updated

2 months ago
Assignee: nobody → mconley
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Iteration: --- → 56.1 - Jun 26
Priority: P2 → P1

Updated

2 months ago
Iteration: 56.1 - Jun 26 → 56.2 - Jul 10
(Assignee)

Updated

2 months ago
Depends on: 1363361
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)

Updated

a month ago
Iteration: 56.2 - Jul 10 → 56.3 - Jul 24
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
(Reporter)

Comment 5

a month ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review161604

Looks good, but I have 2 concerns here:
- should we add the letters one by one using EventUtils.synthesizeKey(letter, {}); to simulate a user typing? I assume that would cause a lot more sync reflows. If you considered it but decided we should start doing that only once the existing whitelist has been reduced, that's fine.
- this seems to rely on the default places content. I'm afraid that'll be different on different channels (eg. on beta or release I expect us to set different default bookmarks than on Nightly). I think this is likely to change the set of reflow stacks we are seeing (or most likely just change the count of the various stacks).

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:126
(Diff revision 2)
> +      "_reuseAcItem@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml",
> +      "_appendCurrentResult@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml",
> +      "_invalidate@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml",
> +      "invalidate@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml"
> +    ],
> +    times: 222, // This number should only ever go down - never up.

:-o

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:139
(Diff revision 2)
> + * @param win (browser window)
> + *        The window to do the search in.
> + * @returns Promise
> + */
> +async function promiseAutocompleteResultPopup(win) {
> +  win.gURLBar.controller.startSearch(win.gURLBar.value);

nit: win.gURLBar is accessed 5 times in this function, I would put it in a variable.

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:161
(Diff revision 2)
> +  await ensureNoPreloadedBrowser(win);
> +
> +  win.gURLBar.focus();
> +  win.gURLBar.value = SEARCH_TERM;
> +  await withReflowObserver(async function(dirtyFrameFn) {
> +    let oldInvalidate = win.gURLBar.popup.invalidate.bind(win.gURLBar.popup);

nit: let popup = win.gURLBar.popup;

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:164
(Diff revision 2)
> +  win.gURLBar.value = SEARCH_TERM;
> +  await withReflowObserver(async function(dirtyFrameFn) {
> +    let oldInvalidate = win.gURLBar.popup.invalidate.bind(win.gURLBar.popup);
> +    let oldResultsAdded = win.gURLBar.popup.onResultsAdded.bind(win.gURLBar.popup);
> +
> +    win.gURLBar.popup.invalidate = (reason) => {

why do we need to dirty the frame tree outside of the normal mechanism? (this should likely be a comment in the test)
Attachment #8884937 - Flags: review?(florian) → review+
(Reporter)

Comment 6

a month ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8885307 [details]
Bug 1356271 - Make it so that it's easier to define repeating reflows for reflow tests.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/156164/#review161610

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_tabopen_reflows.js:19
(Diff revision 1)
>   */
>  const EXPECTED_REFLOWS = [
>    // selection change notification may cause querying the focused editor content
>    // by IME and that will cause reflow.
> -  [
> +  {
> +    stack:   [

is eslint happy with the multiple spaces between ':' and '[' here? Seems to be an accident.

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_tabopen_squeeze_reflows.js:14
(Diff revision 1)
>   * See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Performance_best_practices_for_Firefox_fe_engineers
>   * for tips on how to do that.
>   */
>  const EXPECTED_REFLOWS = [
> -  [
> +  {
> +    stack:   [

same here

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_windowopen_reflows.js:17
(Diff revision 1)
>   * See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Performance_best_practices_for_Firefox_fe_engineers
>   * for tips on how to do that.
>   */
>  const EXPECTED_REFLOWS = [
> -  [
> +  {
> +    stack:   [

and here

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/head.js:64
(Diff revision 1)
> + *              "_fillTrailingGap@chrome://browser/content/tabbrowser.xml",
> + *              "_handleNewTab@chrome://browser/content/tabbrowser.xml",
> + *              "onxbltransitionend@chrome://browser/content/tabbrowser.xml",
> + *            ],
> + *            // We expect this reflow to only happen once
> + *            times: 1,

I would make 1 the default value and skip this line in tests for all the cases where a reflow happens only once.
(Assignee)

Comment 7

a month ago
mozreview-review-reply
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review161604

> why do we need to dirty the frame tree outside of the normal mechanism? (this should likely be a comment in the test)

This is because results are added to the popup via an XPCOM search observer callback that occurs outside of normal JS events (which is what `withReflowObserver` uses to dirty the frame tree). I'll add a comment.
(Assignee)

Comment 8

a month ago
mozreview-review-reply
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review161604

I'll write a new test for the first case that you describe. As you say, I do expect this to result in a heck of a lot of reflows.

For the second - that's a great catch. I'll insert some custom history entries instead.
(In reply to Mike Conley (:mconley) - Digging out of needinfo / review backlog. from comment #8)

> For the second - that's a great catch. I'll insert some custom history
> entries instead.

I wonder if the reflows are the same for history entries, bookmark entries, and search suggestions. All of these may be possible to fake. Starting with only history entries sounds fine, and we can add more variations in follow-ups if needed.
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
(Reporter)

Comment 13

a month ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8886256 [details]
Bug 1356271 - Clean up comment about reflow test helper now that we're using a better mechanism to dirty the frame tree.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/157028/#review162234
Attachment #8886256 - Flags: review?(florian) → review+
(Reporter)

Comment 14

a month ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8885307 [details]
Bug 1356271 - Make it so that it's easier to define repeating reflows for reflow tests.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/156164/#review162238

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/head.js:67
(Diff revisions 1 - 2)
>  
>    // We're going to remove the reflows one by one as we see them so that
>    // we can check for expected, unseen reflows, so let's clone the array.
> -  expectedReflows = expectedReflows.slice(0);
> +  // While we're at it, for reflows that omit the "times" property, default
> +  // it to 1.
> +  expectedReflows = expectedReflows.slice(0).map(reflow => {

That's fine I guess, but a .map function that modifies its parameter makes me a bit uncomfortable.

I would prefer:
expectedReflows.forEach(r => { r.times = r.times || 1; })
Attachment #8885307 - Flags: review?(florian) → review+
(Reporter)

Comment 15

a month ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review162244

I have much more confidence in this new version :-).

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:163
(Diff revision 3)
> +  const DOMAIN = "http://example.com";
> +  let visits = [];
> +
> +  for (let i = 0; i < NUM_VISITS; ++i) {
> +    visits.push({
> +      uri: `${DOMAIN}/urlbar-reflows-${i}`,

Is there a reason for making DOMAIN a const rather than inlining it here?

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:209
(Diff revision 3)
> +      oldResultsAdded();
> +    };
> +
> +    await promiseAutocompleteResultPopup(win);
> +  }, EXPECTED_REFLOWS, win);
> +  await BrowserTestUtils.closeWindow(win);

I don't feel strongly so feel free to leave this as is, but if I was the one writing this, I would inline this function so that the test code can be read sequentially from top to bottom.

Do you expect to be able to re-use this function to expand the test later? I don't think its current implementation will be helpful for a test trying to synthesize key events.
(Reporter)

Comment 16

a month ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review162294

Thinking about this some more, I think this test does a good job of preventing regressions, but doesn't really help us to prioritize our efforts toward fixing what matters the most for users.

This is using a new window, and so catches all the reflows we do when first opening the awesomebar. I don't think fixing all of this by 57 is achievable. And if one sync reflow happens when opening the panel, that's probably OKish, as long as we don't cause several in a row by dirtying the frame tree and causing another reflow... and this is something the test doesn't test because we purposefully dirty the frame tree all the time here.
Should this test (or a variation of it) not dirty the frame tree right after a reflow happened, so that we have a chance of counting how many sync reflows would actually be experienced by the user?

The sync reflows that I think we really need to eliminate for 57 are those that happen while the user is typing, especially while the panel is already open. And even more specifically, the reflows that happen once per item we display.
Could we add soon another test that starts with the awesomebar panel already opened, and counts only the reflows happening when the user causes the display to refresh by typing more characters?

(in case it isn't clear; none of this should block landing, I just figured I would dump my thoughts somewhere)

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:157
(Diff revision 3)
> +}
> +
> +const SEARCH_TERM = "urlbar-reflows";
> +
> +add_task(async function setup() {
> +  const NUM_VISITS = 6;

How did you pick this constant? (may be worth explaining in a comment above it)

Should it match the max number of results that will be displayed in the awesomebar (10 currently)? If so, should we get this value from somewhere else instead of copying the constant in the test?
(In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] from comment #15)

> :::
> browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:209
> (Diff revision 3)
> > +      oldResultsAdded();
> > +    };
> > +
> > +    await promiseAutocompleteResultPopup(win);
> > +  }, EXPECTED_REFLOWS, win);
> > +  await BrowserTestUtils.closeWindow(win);
> 
> I don't feel strongly so feel free to leave this as is, but if I was the one
> writing this, I would inline this function so that the test code can be read
> sequentially from top to bottom.
> 
> Do you expect to be able to re-use this function to expand the test later? I
> don't think its current implementation will be helpful for a test trying to
> synthesize key events.

This comment was meant to be attached to the promiseAutocompleteResultPopup call, not the BrowserTestUtils.closeWindow one.
Created attachment 8889467 [details] [diff] [review]
check reflows the second time the panel opens

While reviewing bug 1356532, I updated this test to verify that these patches had the intended effect.

I think it would make sense to open the awesomebar a second time during this test, and whitelist separately the reflows that happen only the first time and the reflows that happen everytime.

This made me observe that the one-off buttons are rebuilt the 2 first times rather than only the first time. I filed bug 1383749 on this.

The list of reflow stacks in the test after applying this patch reflect the situation after fixing bug 1356532 and bug 1383749.

Feel free to either r+ this patch or adopt it.
Attachment #8889467 - Flags: review?(mconley)

Updated

a month ago
Iteration: 56.3 - Jul 24 → 56.4 - Aug 1
(Assignee)

Comment 19

a month ago
Comment on attachment 8889467 [details] [diff] [review]
check reflows the second time the panel opens

Thanks, looks good! I'll file a bug for that one reflow in EXPECTED_REFLOWS and update the comment, and then just fold this in.
Attachment #8889467 - Flags: review?(mconley) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 20

a month ago
Comment on attachment 8889467 [details] [diff] [review]
check reflows the second time the panel opens

Review of attachment 8889467 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js
@@ -48,5 @@
>      ],
>      times: 2, // This number should only ever go down - never up.
>    },
> -
> -  {

Pretty surprising these went away somehow... uh, let me just run this locally to check.
(Assignee)

Comment 21

a month ago
Comment on attachment 8889467 [details] [diff] [review]
check reflows the second time the panel opens

I have folded this patch in and updated it to reflect current reality in terms of reflow stacks. This meant getting rid of the shared EXPECTED_REFLOWS array, and having two distinct arrays.
Attachment #8889467 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Comment 22

a month ago
mozreview-review-reply
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review162244

> Is there a reason for making DOMAIN a const rather than inlining it here?

I think I was originally using it elsewhere, but I dropped that part. I'll inline it.

> I don't feel strongly so feel free to leave this as is, but if I was the one writing this, I would inline this function so that the test code can be read sequentially from top to bottom.
> 
> Do you expect to be able to re-use this function to expand the test later? I don't think its current implementation will be helpful for a test trying to synthesize key events.

Yeah, I think I'm probably going to end up re-using it for the typing case, but it will require slight modification. I'm going to leave this as is for now.
(Assignee)

Comment 23

a month ago
mozreview-review-reply
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review162294

> How did you pick this constant? (may be worth explaining in a comment above it)
> 
> Should it match the max number of results that will be displayed in the awesomebar (10 currently)? If so, should we get this value from somewhere else instead of copying the constant in the test?

Okay, will switch this to 10 and update reflow counts accordingly.
(In reply to Mike Conley (:mconley) - Buried in needinfo / review backlog, eating my way out from comment #20)
> Comment on attachment 8889467 [details] [diff] [review]
> check reflows the second time the panel opens
> 
> Review of attachment 8889467 [details] [diff] [review]:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js
> @@ -48,5 @@
> >      ],
> >      times: 2, // This number should only ever go down - never up.
> >    },
> > -
> > -  {
> 
> Pretty surprising these went away somehow... uh, let me just run this
> locally to check.

As I said in comment 18, that's when testing with the patches from bug 1356532 applied.

(In reply to Mike Conley (:mconley) - Buried in needinfo / review backlog, eating my way out from comment #21)

> I have folded this patch in and updated it to reflect current reality in
> terms of reflow stacks. This meant getting rid of the shared
> EXPECTED_REFLOWS array, and having two distinct arrays.

Why does it get rid of the shared array?
(Assignee)

Comment 25

a month ago
(In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] (away until August 7th) from comment #24)
> 
> As I said in comment 18, that's when testing with the patches from bug
> 1356532 applied.

Ah, missed that part. Thanks.

> 
> Why does it get rid of the shared array?

Mainly because the stacks and numbers are different enough (at least at this time, without bug 1356532 fixed) that that simplification seems overcomplicated, imo. I currently have some matching stacks between the two arrays that have different "times" counts, and I didn't want to write more than necessary to reduce it all.
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)

Comment 29

29 days ago
Pushed by mconley@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/f8860e47d9c3
Clean up comment about reflow test helper now that we're using a better mechanism to dirty the frame tree. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/cebc6bb19d83
Make it so that it's easier to define repeating reflows for reflow tests. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/cfb6f5820871
add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search. r=florian
Backed out for test failures like https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer.html#?job_id=118106291&repo=autoland

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/4df14467e14cd45297ff6fb096f9f4340e79144a
Flags: needinfo?(mconley)
(Reporter)

Comment 31

29 days ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8884937 [details]
Bug 1356271 - add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/155778/#review166960

::: browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:118
(Diff revision 4)
> +  },
> +];
> +
> +/* These reflows happen everytime the awesomebar panel opens. */
> +const EXPECTED_REFLOWS_SECOND_OPEN = [
> +  // Bug 1357054

That was actually bug 1383749, which is already fixed. I guess that's the other part of comment 18 that you missed :-/.
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)

Comment 35

28 days ago
Pushed by mconley@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/33172a0a496a
Clean up comment about reflow test helper now that we're using a better mechanism to dirty the frame tree. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/8ec898cb33d5
Make it so that it's easier to define repeating reflows for reflow tests. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/54b35cdc1f84
add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search. r=florian

Comment 36

28 days ago
bugherder
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/33172a0a496a
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8ec898cb33d5
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/54b35cdc1f84
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 28 days ago
status-firefox56: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 56
(Assignee)

Updated

28 days ago
Flags: needinfo?(mconley)

Comment 37

27 days ago
Backout by cbook@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/127982eac3f4
Backed out changeset 54b35cdc1f84 
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0ec51e44ccd1
Backed out changeset 8ec898cb33d5 
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5845151f1a2c
Backed out changeset 33172a0a496a for broken tests after the backout of bug 1351148 on try
had to back this out in https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=mozilla-central&revision=5845151f1a2cd00957fdd48e204542ccbdfaba1e because of the backout of bug 1351148 and try tests from stone showed perma failures like https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer.html#?job_id=118840729&repo=try when bug 1351148 was backedout on try
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
status-firefox56: fixed → ---
Flags: needinfo?(mconley)
Resolution: FIXED → ---
(Assignee)

Comment 39

27 days ago
I'm guessing that, especially on slower debug builds, the sheer number of reflows being processed causes this test to time out, and bug 1351148 just changed the timing a bit.

I'll update the test to request a longer period to run, and re-land.
Flags: needinfo?(mconley)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)

Comment 43

26 days ago
Pushed by mconley@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/4047a260173d
Clean up comment about reflow test helper now that we're using a better mechanism to dirty the frame tree. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/742643bf1bcb
Make it so that it's easier to define repeating reflows for reflow tests. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/cf8d9788723a
add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search. r=florian

Comment 44

26 days ago
Backout by archaeopteryx@coole-files.de:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/d389494af12c
Backed out changeset cf8d9788723a 
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/843bb2fdec5d
Backed out changeset 742643bf1bcb 
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/58b2f8b17e37
Backed out changeset 4047a260173d for failing browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js on Linux. r=backout
Backed out for failing browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js on Linux:

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/58b2f8b17e37c9760145d4cf8f9837e6ae79876f
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/843bb2fdec5d0181a03b60e42d8cfdd56a561fee
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/d389494af12c7f107efd218b0a96bec1ef6ae518

A push with failures: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=autoland&revision=b9abf4de15297fa10e1ee09c99713a2c6286fd69&filter-resultStatus=testfailed&filter-resultStatus=busted&filter-resultStatus=exception&filter-resultStatus=retry&filter-resultStatus=usercancel&filter-resultStatus=runnable
Failure log: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer.html#?job_id=119210956&repo=autoland

[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.872871Z] 08:42:23     INFO - TEST-PASS | browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js | expected uninterruptible reflow: '[
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.882081Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"adjustHeight@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml:1289:31",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.886937Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"_invalidate/this._adjustHeightTimeout<@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml:1186:58",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.889758Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"setTimeout handler*_invalidate@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml:1186:41",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.894308Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"invalidate@chrome://global/content/bindings/autocomplete.xml:1164:11",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.897918Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"testFn/popup.invalidate@chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:252:7",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.900459Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"testFn/popup.invalidate@chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:252:7",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.905805Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"notifyResults@jar:file:///home/worker/workspace/build/application/firefox/omni.ja!/components/UnifiedComplete.js:2214:5",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.911044Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"finishSearch@jar:file:///home/worker/workspace/build/application/firefox/omni.ja!/components/UnifiedComplete.js:2387:5",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.914704Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"startSearch/<@jar:file:///home/worker/workspace/build/application/firefox/omni.ja!/components/UnifiedComplete.js:2344:33",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.918540Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"promise callback*startSearch@jar:file:///home/worker/workspace/build/application/firefox/omni.ja!/components/UnifiedComplete.js:2337:5",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.924218Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"promiseAutocompleteResultPopup@chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:183:3",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.928962Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"async*testFn@chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:260:11",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.932770Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"async*withReflowObserver@chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/performance/head.js:128:11",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.936535Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"async*@chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js:265:9",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.940733Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"Async*Tester_execTest/<@chrome://mochikit/content/browser-test.js:798:21",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.943111Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"TaskImpl_run@resource://gre/modules/Task.jsm:331:42",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.945363Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"promise callback*TaskImpl_handleResultValue@resource://gre/modules/Task.jsm:408:7",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.947606Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"TaskImpl_run@resource://gre/modules/Task.jsm:339:15",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.951429Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"TaskImpl@resource://gre/modules/Task.jsm:280:3",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.954225Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"asyncFunction@resource://gre/modules/Task.jsm:252:14",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.956744Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"Task_spawn@resource://gre/modules/Task.jsm:166:12",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.963291Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"Tester_execTest@chrome://mochikit/content/browser-test.js:789:9",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.965208Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"Tester.prototype.nextTest</<@chrome://mochikit/content/browser-test.js:689:7",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.967344Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	"SimpleTest.waitForFocus/waitForFocusInner/focusedOrLoaded/<@chrome://mochikit/content/tests/SimpleTest/SimpleTest.js:795:59",
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.969289Z] 08:42:23     INFO - 	""
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.971270Z] 08:42:23     INFO - ]' - true == true - 
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.973443Z] 08:42:23     INFO - Buffered messages finished
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.975390Z] 08:42:23     INFO - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | browser/base/content/test/performance/browser_urlbar_search_reflows.js | Test timed out - 
[task 2017-07-29T08:42:23.977495Z] 08:42:23     INFO - Leaving test bound
Flags: needinfo?(mconley)
(Assignee)

Updated

24 days ago
See Also: → bug 1385932
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)

Comment 49

24 days ago
Pushed by mconley@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/8536b787a5c7
Clean up comment about reflow test helper now that we're using a better mechanism to dirty the frame tree. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/79ac0025e9e8
Make it so that it's easier to define repeating reflows for reflow tests. r=florian
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/1c901b2b5971
add a test to measure how many layout flushes it takes for a simple location bar search. r=florian

Comment 50

23 days ago
bugherder
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8536b787a5c7
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/79ac0025e9e8
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1c901b2b5971
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 28 days ago23 days ago
status-firefox56: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Updated

22 days ago
Blocks: 1363507
No longer depends on: 1363507
(Assignee)

Updated

21 days ago
Flags: needinfo?(mconley)
Depends on: 1390824
No longer depends on: 1390824
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.