Intermittent dom/events/test/test_eventTimeStamp.html | Event timestamp (78) is in expected range: (78, 78)

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 59

Status

()

P5
normal
RESOLVED FIXED
a year ago
11 months ago

People

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

Tracking

({intermittent-failure})

unspecified
mozilla60
intermittent-failure
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite +

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox59 fixed, firefox60 fixed)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

Priority: -- → P5
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)
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)
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)
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot)
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot)
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot)
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot)
(Assignee)

Comment 23

11 months ago
It looks like this comes from this code:

>    ok(evt.timeStamp > timeBeforeEvent &&
>       evt.timeStamp < timeAfterEvent,
>       "Event timestamp (" + evt.timeStamp + ") is in expected range: (" +
>         timeBeforeEvent + ", " + timeAfterEvent + ")");

...and we "fail" when all three timestamps are equal (since it's a strict less-than/greater-than comparison.

Brian, looks like you wrote this test back in Bug 77992 -- can you confirm that this would be a reasonable change?  (And: does this failure seem worrisome/broken to you, if you remember how this test works?)
Flags: needinfo?(bbirtles)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
(Assignee)

Updated

11 months ago
Assignee: nobody → dholbert
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: needinfo?(bbirtles)

Comment 25

11 months ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8947159 [details]
Bug 1382071: Change a comparison in test_eventTimeStamp.html to consider its upper & lower bounds as part of the valid range.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/216928/#review222760
Attachment #8947159 - Flags: review?(bbirtles) → review+

Comment 26

11 months ago
Pushed by dholbert@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/c1c0bf22cf97
Change a comparison in test_eventTimeStamp.html to consider its upper & lower bounds as part of the valid range. r=birtles

Comment 27

11 months ago
bugherder
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c1c0bf22cf97
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 months ago
status-firefox60: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla60

Comment 28

11 months ago
bugherderuplift
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/323cfb8ec74d
status-firefox59: --- → fixed
Flags: in-testsuite+
Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.