Closed Bug 1368143 Opened 8 years ago Closed 7 years ago

Intermittent browser/base/content/test/siteIdentity/browser_bug902156.js | Expected state for activeBlocked matches UI state - Got true, expected false

Categories

(Firefox :: Site Identity, defect, P1)

defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Firefox 57
Tracking Status
firefox57 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: intermittent-bug-filer, Assigned: johannh)

Details

(Keywords: intermittent-failure, Whiteboard: [stockwell fixed:other])

Attachments

(1 file)

Priority: -- → P3
:johann, this test is failing often on osx, is it possibly you could take a look at fixing this sometime in the next week or two?
Flags: needinfo?(jhofmann)
Whiteboard: [stockwell needswork]
This smells like bug 1348549 again. Only this test is a lot bigger :/ I'd like to note that I'm not the author of either test, but I guess I can fix this one as well.
Assignee: nobody → jhofmann
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: needinfo?(jhofmann) → qe-verify-
Priority: P3 → P1
Comment on attachment 8894495 [details] Bug 1368143 - Modernize browser_bug902156.js. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/165664/#review172090 Thanks! Tentative r+, with a couple of questions. Sorry for the delay reviewing this! ::: browser/base/content/test/siteIdentity/browser_bug902156.js:52 (Diff revision 2) > - BrowserTestUtils.waitForCondition( > + await ContentTaskUtils.waitForCondition( > - () => content.document.getElementById("mctestdiv").innerHTML == expected, > + () => content.document.getElementById("mctestdiv").innerHTML == expected, > - "Error: Waited too long for mixed script to run in Test 1B").then(test1C); > + "Error: Waited too long for mixed script to run in Test 1"); > -} > > -function test1C() { > + let actual = content.document.getElementById("mctestdiv").innerHTML; What's the point of checking this again after the waitForCondition call? Also, shall we increase the scope of the expected string variable and reuse it (the same string is used again a few times)? ::: browser/base/content/test/siteIdentity/browser_bug902156.js:67 (Diff revision 2) > -function test1D() { > - // The Control Center button should appear but isMixedContentBlocked should be NOT true, > + // The Control Center button should appear but isMixedContentBlocked should be NOT true, > - // because our decision of disabling the mixed content blocker is persistent. > + // because our decision of disabling the mixed content blocker is persistent. > - assertMixedContentBlockingState(gTestBrowser, {activeLoaded: true, activeBlocked: false, passiveLoaded: false}); > - > - var actual = content.document.getElementById("mctestdiv").innerHTML; > + assertMixedContentBlockingState(browser, {activeLoaded: true, activeBlocked: false, passiveLoaded: false}); > + await ContentTask.spawn(browser, null, function() { > + let actual = content.document.getElementById("mctestdiv").innerHTML; I'm not sure I fully understand the exact order of events, but how come we don't need a waitForCondition here like above?
Attachment #8894495 - Flags: review?(nhnt11) → review+
Comment on attachment 8894495 [details] Bug 1368143 - Modernize browser_bug902156.js. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/165664/#review172090 > What's the point of checking this again after the waitForCondition call? > > Also, shall we increase the scope of the expected string variable and reuse it (the same string is used again a few times)? It was done originally so I kept it, I guess it's a style question. > Also, shall we increase the scope of the expected string variable and reuse it (the same string is used again a few times)? I think that's difficult to do because most of the assertions are inside ContentTasks. > I'm not sure I fully understand the exact order of events, but how come we don't need a waitForCondition here like above? Uhm, good question. I just transformed the original test, not sure what they were thinking. I think either way works so I'd prefer to keep it like that and not risk breaking anything.
I had forgotten to do a try push for this, doing it now.
We're sorry, Autoland could not rebase your commits for you automatically. Please manually rebase your commits and try again. hg error in cmd: hg rebase -s 442f9e522c80 -d 0a543fedee9c: rebasing 414214:442f9e522c80 "Bug 1368143 - Modernize browser_bug902156.js. r=nhnt11" (tip) merging browser/base/content/test/siteIdentity/browser_bug902156.js warning: conflicts while merging browser/base/content/test/siteIdentity/browser_bug902156.js! (edit, then use 'hg resolve --mark') unresolved conflicts (see hg resolve, then hg rebase --continue)
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 57
Whiteboard: [stockwell needswork] → [stockwell fixed:other]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: