Stack traces are no longer recorded by the memory panel across reloads
Categories
(DevTools :: Memory, defect, P1)
Tracking
(firefox-esr78 unaffected, firefox-esr91 unaffected, firefox92 unaffected, firefox93 verified, firefox94 verified)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr78 | --- | unaffected |
firefox-esr91 | --- | unaffected |
firefox92 | --- | unaffected |
firefox93 | --- | verified |
firefox94 | --- | verified |
People
(Reporter: ochameau, Assigned: ochameau)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression, Whiteboard: dt-perf-stability-triage)
Attachments
(3 files)
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
pascalc
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
pascalc
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
pascalc
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
STR:
- open a page
- open memory panel
- Turn on "record stack stacks" via the checkbox
- reload the page
- take a memory snapshot
- Select View: Aggregate and Group by: Call Stack
ER: See some objects with call stacks
AR: We get the No call stacks found. Record call stacks before taking a snapshot.
warning and none of the objects are with any stack.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•1 year ago
|
||
Without this, server side target were breaking stack record in the memory panel.
We have to ensure toggling stack record ON before the page starts loading.
Updated•1 year ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•1 year ago
|
||
To help know if a given configuration is supported by the backend.
Comment 3•1 year ago
|
||
Comment 4•1 year ago
|
||
Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1702715
Comment 5•1 year ago
|
||
Changing severity to S2 because this is a severe impact. Thanks Alex for working on this!
Updated•1 year ago
|
Pushed by apoirot@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/af5fbdc901eb [devtools] Implement TargetConfigurationCommands.supports r=jdescottes https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/2a0d5c83f586 [devtools] Fix stack recording in the memory panel. r=jdescottes
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•1 year ago
|
||
If we end up uplifting these fixes, we should tweak the backward compat comments.
Comment 8•1 year ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/af5fbdc901eb
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2a0d5c83f586
Comment 9•1 year ago
|
||
The patch landed in nightly and beta is affected.
:ochameau, is this bug important enough to require an uplift?
If not please set status_beta
to wontfix
.
For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•1 year ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9239888 [details]
Bug 1729500 - [devtools] Fix stack recording in the memory panel.
Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: The memory panel would no longer record stack traces when doing a page reload.
- Is this code covered by automated tests?: Yes
- Has the fix been verified in Nightly?: No
- Needs manual test from QE?: Yes
- If yes, steps to reproduce: * open a page
- open memory panel
- Turn on "record stack stacks" via the checkbox
- reload the page
- take a memory snapshot
- Select View: Aggregate and Group by: Call Stack
ER: See some objects with call stacks
AR: We get the No call stacks found. Record call stacks before taking a snapshot. warning and none of the objects are with any stack.
- List of other uplifts needed: None
- Risk to taking this patch: Low
- Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky): Mostly changes the memory panel itself. The changes outside of the memory panel are quite simple.
- String changes made/needed: no
Assignee | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 11•1 year ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9239888 [details]
Bug 1729500 - [devtools] Fix stack recording in the memory panel.
P1/S2, low risk + tests, we are still in betas, uplift approved for 93 beta 8, thanks.
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 12•1 year ago
|
||
bugherderuplift |
Comment 13•1 year ago
•
|
||
Reproduced with Firefox 94.0a1 (20210907214756) on Windows 10x64.
Verified fixed with Firefox 93.0b8 (20210921185902) and 94.0a1 (20210922094736) on Windows 10x64, macOS 10.15 and Ubuntu 21.04 by following the STR from comment 10.
Updated•1 year ago
|
Description
•