###!!! ASSERTION: Returning unknown unit type: 'Not Reached', file svg/content/src/SVGLength.cpp, line 291 mozilla::GetUnitTypeForString [content/svg/content/src/SVGLength.cpp:292] mozilla::SVGLength::SetValueFromString [content/svg/content/src/SVGLength.cpp:88] mozilla::SVGLengthList::SetValueFromString [content/svg/content/src/SVGLengthList.cpp:103] mozilla::SVGAnimatedLengthList::SetBaseValueString [content/svg/content/src/SVGAnimatedLengthList.cpp:52] nsSVGElement::ParseAttribute [content/svg/content/src/nsSVGElement.cpp:363] nsSVGStylableElement::ParseAttribute [content/svg/content/src/nsSVGStylableElement.cpp:131] nsGenericElement::SetAttr [content/base/src/nsGenericElement.cpp:4591] nsXMLContentSink::AddAttributes [content/xml/document/src/nsXMLContentSink.cpp:1491] nsXMLContentSink::HandleStartElement [content/xml/document/src/nsXMLContentSink.cpp:1058] nsXMLContentSink::HandleStartElement [content/xml/document/src/nsXMLContentSink.cpp:986] nsExpatDriver::HandleStartElement [parser/htmlparser/src/nsExpatDriver.cpp:410] Driver_HandleStartElement [parser/htmlparser/src/nsExpatDriver.cpp:98] doContent [parser/expat/lib/xmlparse.c:2465] contentProcessor [parser/expat/lib/xmlparse.c:2095] doProlog [parser/expat/lib/xmlparse.c:4075] prologProcessor [parser/expat/lib/xmlparse.c:3811] prologInitProcessor [parser/expat/lib/xmlparse.c:3626] MOZ_XML_Parse [parser/expat/lib/xmlparse.c:1528] nsExpatDriver::ParseBuffer [parser/htmlparser/src/nsExpatDriver.cpp:1003] nsExpatDriver::ConsumeToken [parser/htmlparser/src/nsExpatDriver.cpp:1102] nsParser::Tokenize [parser/htmlparser/src/nsParser.cpp:3090] nsParser::ResumeParse [parser/htmlparser/src/nsParser.cpp:2322] nsParser::OnDataAvailable [parser/htmlparser/src/nsParser.cpp:2954] nsDocumentOpenInfo::OnDataAvailable [uriloader/base/nsURILoader.cpp:323] nsBaseChannel::OnDataAvailable [netwerk/base/src/nsBaseChannel.cpp:732] nsInputStreamPump::OnStateTransfer [netwerk/base/src/nsInputStreamPump.cpp:510] nsInputStreamPump::OnInputStreamReady [netwerk/base/src/nsInputStreamPump.cpp:400] nsInputStreamReadyEvent::Run [xpcom/io/nsStreamUtils.cpp:113] nsThread::ProcessNextEvent [xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:547] NS_ProcessPendingEvents_P [nsThreadUtils.cpp:200] nsBaseAppShell::NativeEventCallback [widget/src/xpwidgets/nsBaseAppShell.cpp:127] nsAppShell::ProcessGeckoEvents [widget/src/cocoa/nsAppShell.mm:395] CoreFoundation + 0x3f0fb CoreFoundation + 0x3cbbf CoreFoundation + 0x3c094 CoreFoundation + 0x3bec1 HIToolbox + 0x34f9c HIToolbox + 0x34d51 HIToolbox + 0x34bd6 AppKit + 0x48a89 -AppKit + 0x482ca -AppKit + 0xa55b nsAppShell::Run [widget/src/cocoa/nsAppShell.mm:747] nsAppStartup::Run [toolkit/components/startup/src/nsAppStartup.cpp:191] XRE_main [toolkit/xre/nsAppRunner.cpp:3630] main [browser/app/nsBrowserApp.cpp:158]
Flagging as regression from bug 515116, since the assertion-failure is in code added in that bug.
Assignee: nobody → jwatt
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #465236 - Flags: review?(longsonr)
The test would be better as a mochitest I think. The code looks fine so r+ on that.
Attachment #465238 - Flags: review?(longsonr) → review+
Why would a mochitest be better? I can use a mochitest if you prefer.
The main reason I made it a reftest is because the test is simpler (no HTML or script required).
What is fundamental to the test is that the value isn't parsed so it comes back as 0. Or alternatively all the changes are in content so the test should be in content too. A mochitest would tell you this straight away directly and it would be easier to figure out what was wrong if something went wrong too. I think there are existing mochitests you can adapt or extend.
Summary: "ASSERTION: Returning unknown unit type" → "ASSERTION: Returning unknown unit type" regression from bug 515116
Attachment #495396 - Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
Note, regressions since Firefox 3.6 should be marked "regression" and requested for blocking.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(In reply to comment #9) > Note, regressions since Firefox 3.6 should be marked "regression" and requested > for blocking. (FWIW, I didn't add the "regression" keyword in comment 1 because this isn't technically a regression in the "something that used to work is now broken" sense of the word. This bug's assertion was added since Firefox 3.6, and Jesse simply found a way to make the new assertion fail.) (In comment 1, I probably should have said "Flagging as blocking bug 515116" instead of "Flagging as regression from bug 515116" - sorry for the imprecise language there & any confusion w.r.t. regression-status that it caused.)
That's a good point. Arguably a testcase that fires an assertion in FF4 that didn't in FF3.6 is also a regression. Personally I think that any bug we have in FF4 that's not in FF3.6 should be treated as a regression.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.