Closed Bug 475369 Opened 13 years ago Closed 11 years ago

test_seek1.html randomly failed on Windows unittest box: "Video currentTime should be around 2: 0"

Categories

(Core :: Audio/Video, defect, P2)

x86
Linux
defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla1.9.2a1

People

(Reporter: dholbert, Assigned: cajbir)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.9.1)

Attachments

(2 files)

This mochitest just randomly failed:
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-central unit test on 2009/01/26 07:53:42
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1232985222.1232990388.24904.gz
*** 27703 ERROR TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | /tests/content/media/video/test/test_seek1.html | Video currentTime should be around 2: 0.032999999821186066

I say "randomly" because the previous cycle was built from the same revision, and it passed this mochitest (though it failed 2 crashtests) as shown in this log:
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1232982889.1232987205.16910.gz
Note: this sounds a bit like bug 469595, but that bug's been resolved as fixed, so I'm filing this as a separate bug.
This test also failed on the same machine 4 cycles earlier, and also during a cycle last night:
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-central unit test on 2009/01/26 03:57:45
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1232971065.1232975290.11372.gz
WINNT 5.2 mozilla-central unit test on 2009/01/25 11:53:42
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1232913222.1232917361.11397.gz

Both of these have the message "Video currentTime should be around 2: 0"
Summary: test_seek1.html randomly failed on Windows unittest box: "Video currentTime should be around 2: 0.032999999821186066" → test_seek1.html randomly failed on Windows unittest box: "Video currentTime should be around 2: 0"
We need to add some instrumentation so we can collect debug output on failing seek tests to try to narrow down the problem.
Flags: blocking1.9.1+
Priority: -- → P2
Assignee: nobody → chris.double
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #359173 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #359173 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attached patch Re-enable testsSplinter Review
Attachment #359174 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #359174 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #359173 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #359173 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #359173 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #359173 - Flags: review+
Attachment #359174 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #359174 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #359174 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #359174 - Flags: review+
I'm not sure if this will fix the orange, but we should try it, by landing both patches together when the tree is not under pressure (i.e. not until beta3 is done) and then backing out the test-enabler patch if we still get failures.
Actually we should land the code change ASAP. Reenabling the tests should wait.
Pushed code change as http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6739e046d870. Leaving this bug open to until we push the test re-enable and see if they're fixed.
The code change should land in 1.9.1 anyway.
Whiteboard: [needs landing] → [needs 191 landing]
I've been testing the seek tests on XP and Vista in both debug and opt builds, and I haven't seen them fail, despite testing in a large number of runs. I think we should try to enable them again, some recent change may have fixed them.
Downgrading to wanted anyway, since there's nothing here to block on.
Flags: blocking1.9.1+ → wanted1.9.1+
test_seek4.html failed on 1.9.1 in a similar way. should i file a new bug?
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox3.5/1242810170.1242820731.20679.gz
Is this test still failing? Can we close?
No reply for two weeks, and there appears to be no repeat of the failure. If it happens again or you think it's not fixed please reopen with details.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Attachment #359173 - Attachment description: Pass seeking information through to channel listener → Pass seeking information through to channel listener [Checked in: Comment 8 & 10]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.2a1
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.