Closed
Bug 595620
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
xpcshell: new test_componentsRegistered.js fails
Categories
(SeaMonkey :: Build Config, defect)
SeaMonkey
Build Config
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
FIXED
seamonkey2.1b1
People
(Reporter: sgautherie, Assigned: sgautherie)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug, )
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
1.82 KB,
patch
|
Callek
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
3.21 KB,
patch
|
Callek
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Example:
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1284173593.1284174881.627.gz
Linux comm-central-trunk debug test xpcshell on 2010/09/10 19:53:13
{
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | .../test_componentsRegistered.js | test failed (with xpcshell return code: 0), see following log:
...
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | /test_componentsRegistered.js | false == true - See following stack:
...
JS frame :: .../test_componentsRegistered.js :: run_test :: line 3
...
}
Code is
{
2 do_check_true("@mozilla.org/layout-debug/regressiontester;1" in
3 Components.classes);
}
I would guess it's a build/packaging issue, either in Core or SeaMonkey...
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
> I would guess it's a build/packaging issue, either in Core or SeaMonkey...
Your right, its our bug.
From package-compare:
+bin/chrome/layoutdebug.jar
+bin/chrome/layoutdebug.manifest
+bin/components/layout_debug.xpt
Lets add it in debug builds *only*.
[I also see some other stuff in that list that might be worth investigating, another bug though, I'll tackle this week]
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → sgautherie.bz
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Attachment #474539 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Component: Layout → Build Config
Product: Core → SeaMonkey
QA Contact: layout → build-config
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #474539 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 474539 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Package the Layout debug extension
[Checked in: Comment 3]
http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/8d1b298446ac
Attachment #474539 -
Attachment description: (Av1) Package the Layout debug extension → (Av1) Package the Layout debug extension
[Checked in: Comment 3]
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Summary: [SeaMonkey] xpcshell: New test_componentsRegistered.js fails → xpcshell: new test_componentsRegistered.js fails
Target Milestone: --- → seamonkey2.1b1
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #3)
> http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/8d1b298446ac
+
http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/1bf06f6d4829
(Bv1) Add needed -DMOZ_DEBUG=1
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1284329277.1284332814.12645.gz&fulltext=1
Linux comm-central-trunk leak test build on 2010/09/12 15:07:57
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1284325879.1284327429.25584.gz&fulltext=1
OS X 10.5 comm-central-trunk leak test build on 2010/09/12 14:11:19
The packaging part is now fixed :-)
(almost...)
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1284333776.1284335444.22209.gz&fulltext=1
Linux comm-central-trunk debug test xpcshell on 2010/09/12 16:22:56
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1284329979.1284331648.8502.gz&fulltext=1
OS X 10.5 comm-central-trunk debug test xpcshell on 2010/09/12 15:19:39
Yet the failure still happens...
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
Parts missed in comment 1:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/mozilla/layout/Makefile.in
78 ifdef ENABLE_TESTS
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/mozilla/layout/tools/layout-debug/src/Makefile.in
46 LIBRARY_NAME = gkdebug
The latter should fix:
Build:
+bin/components/libgkdebug.so
Xpcshell:
nsNativeModuleLoader::LoadModule(".../components/libgkdebug.so") - load FAILED, rv: 80004005, error:
.../components/libgkdebug.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Do I need any kind of |#ifndef MOZ_STATIC_BUILD|?
Attachment #474605 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 474605 [details] [diff] [review]
(Cv1) Add needed -DENABLE_TESTS=1, Package @DLL_PREFIX@gkdebug@DLL_SUFFIX@ too
I'll r+ this one, but PLLLLEASE one conrete issue per bug. In the future, I'll r- based on that alone, this test is already fixed.
If we don't adhere to that, tracking and release management is harder, by a good deal.
Attachment #474605 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7)
> I'll r+ this one ...
> ... but PLLLLEASE one conrete issue per bug. In the future,
> I'll r- based on that alone, this test is already fixed.
Err missed c#5, sorry. I was wrong this is needed for this bug :/ (Thats what I get for reviewing while tired)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
Cv1, with layoutdebug.jar removal update.
Attachment #474605 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #474610 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment 10•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 474610 [details] [diff] [review]
(Cv1a) Add needed -DENABLE_TESTS=1, Package @DLL_PREFIX@gkdebug@DLL_SUFFIX@ too
[Checked in: Comment 11]
Not a fan of these removed-files.in changes, but I wont belabour the point
Attachment #474610 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 474610 [details] [diff] [review]
(Cv1a) Add needed -DENABLE_TESTS=1, Package @DLL_PREFIX@gkdebug@DLL_SUFFIX@ too
[Checked in: Comment 11]
http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/9992caf4df07
Fwiw, would any kind of |#ifndef MOZ_STATIC_BUILD| be needed?
Attachment #474610 -
Attachment description: (Cv1a) Add needed -DENABLE_TESTS=1, Package @DLL_PREFIX@gkdebug@DLL_SUFFIX@ too → (Cv1a) Add needed -DENABLE_TESTS=1, Package @DLL_PREFIX@gkdebug@DLL_SUFFIX@ too
[Checked in: Comment 11]
Comment 12•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #11)
> Fwiw, would any kind of |#ifndef MOZ_STATIC_BUILD| be needed?
I'm not sure, and won't have time to investigate until later this week at earliest.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #11)
> Fwiw, would any kind of |#ifndef MOZ_STATIC_BUILD| be needed?
It probably was, but bug 598644 obsoleted this :->
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•