Closed Bug 591433 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

"ASSERTION: SHEntry already contains viewer"

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)

x86
Windows 7
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
blocking2.0 --- -

People

(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: smaug)

References

Details

(Keywords: assertion, testcase)

Attachments

(3 files)

Attached file testcase
###!!! ASSERTION: SHEntry already contains viewer: '!aViewer || !mContentViewer', file docshell/shistory/src/nsSHEntry.cpp, line 240

###!!! ASSERTION: Uh, mDocument doesn't match the current inner window document!: '!GetCurrentInnerWindow() || GetCurrentInnerWindow()->GetExtantDocument() == mDocument', file dom/base/nsGlobalWindow.cpp, line 1629
Attached file stacks
Regression from smaug's changes?
blocking2.0: --- → ?
Other testcases (similar in appearance and all difficult to reduce) trigger other SHEntry-related assertions, and some of them sound pretty scary.
I'll look at this.

But other assertions need new bugs.
Assignee: nobody → Olli.Pettay
(In reply to comment #2)
> Regression from smaug's changes?

No. This happens on 1.9.2 too.
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
We shouldn't try to load anything to a docshell which isn't anymore in the
docshell tree.
The problem here is that the document (or its container) which keeps the iframe
alive is already disconnected from the parent docshell.
But we don't tear down all the child docshells in other way than setting
the treeOwner to null.

The testcase should work as crashtest, which asserts without the patch.

I pushed this to tryserver.
Attachment #473489 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
> The testcase should work as crashtest, which asserts without the patch.

On the other hand, the testcase is kind of insane.  What it actually tests is timing-dependent.  Is it possible to make a simpler one, now that you know what's going on?
OS: Mac OS X → Windows 7
I don't see anything "insane" in the testcase.
Well, it's complex and full of timeouts.
Comment on attachment 473489 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

r=me
Attachment #473489 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Attachment #473489 - Flags: approval2.0?
Attachment #473489 - Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
Not blocking, but please land asap.
blocking2.0: ? → -
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/85c59446991a

I'll push still the testcase.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Blocks: 293417
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: