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)
Firefox
Site Identity
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)
Filed by: rvandermeulen [at] mozilla.com
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer.html#?job_id=102362500&repo=autoland
https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/autoland-macosx64-debug/autoland_yosemite_r7-debug_test-mochitest-e10s-browser-chrome-7-bm106-tests1-macosx-build1122.txt.gz
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P3
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment 5•8 years ago
|
||
: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]
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•8 years ago
|
||
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 hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Comment 12•7 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
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+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•7 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review-reply |
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.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•7 years ago
|
||
I had forgotten to do a try push for this, doing it now.
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
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)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment 17•7 years ago
|
||
Pushed by jhofmann@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/b850c8c06d17
Modernize browser_bug902156.js. r=nhnt11
Comment 18•7 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
status-firefox57:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 57
Updated•7 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [stockwell needswork] → [stockwell fixed:other]
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•