Closed Bug 569965 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago
.process Leak Log() should learn not to TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL every single object line when there are lots
In a log like http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1275288346.1275289618.23516.gz, having all the leaked objects pulled up to the top of the brief log (and thus put into tbpl's summary, and thus put into tbplbot's bug comment) is handy: TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 48 bytes during test execution TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 1 instance of Image with size 16 bytes TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 1 instance of VideoData with size 32 bytes tells you just what happened. But in a log like http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=TraceMonkey/1275520343.1275521939.15921.gz it's useless: nobody recognizes a leak because it had 1 instance of BackstagePass, 55 instances of XPCNativeInterface, 197 instances of nsAtomList, and 100 others. http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/build/automationutils.py#299 should keep a count, and once it's done 5 just switch the prefix to TEST-INFO.
Assignee: nobody → ted.mielczarek
This seems plausible, but I'm not sure how to force a leak to test it.
Attachment #449474 - Flags: review?(philringnalda)
Comment on attachment 449474 [details] [diff] [review] (untested) patch "Land, and just wait a little while" is a pretty sure bet for finding out what happens when we leak.
Attachment #449474 - Flags: review?(philringnalda) → review+
I have a more radical proposal in bug 571423. It would be sensible to get this patch in now to cut down on the spam in the meantime.
Yep, sorry, every time I went to land the tree was a mess. Pushed to m-c: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/581906c32c84
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.3
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.