Closed Bug 598458 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Crash running testAccessPageInfoDialog.js

Categories

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect, P2)

x86_64
Windows 7
defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
blocking2.0 --- beta7+

People

(Reporter: cmtalbert, Assigned: mrbkap)

References

Details

(Keywords: assertion, crash, regression, Whiteboard: [mozmill])

Attachments

(1 file)

While working to turn on the new Mozmill unit tests, we found a crash on windows 7 debug builds.  

We were able to figure out it was the testAccessPageInfoDialog.js test: 
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/mozmill/tests/firefox/testTechnicalTools/testAccessPageInfoDialog.js

You can run this from a packaged test by (from objdir/dist/test-package-stage/mozmill):
$> python installmozmill.py
$> Scripts/mozmill.exe -t tests/testTechnicalTools -b ../../bin/firefox.exe

Mrbkap took a look at this and figured out the culprit is a bad assertion.  His patch is attached.  And he noted this is likely a regression from bug 595668.
Attachment #477297 - Flags: review?(lw)
(In reply to comment #0)
> While working to turn on the new Mozmill unit tests, we found a crash on
> windows 7 debug builds.  

Looks great that we got a patch that fast. Looking forward which other tests causes stability issues and test failures with debug builds.
Severity: normal → critical
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Whiteboard: [mozmill]
Version: unspecified → Trunk
blocking2.0: --- → ?
One note, you'll need this patch to run the installmozmill script: https://bug516984.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=477279

That change should get landed later today.
Comment on attachment 477297 [details] [diff] [review]
patch to correct the assertion

Thanks!
Attachment #477297 - Flags: review?(lw) → review+
(In reply to comment #3)
> Comment on attachment 477297 [details] [diff] [review]
> patch to correct the assertion
> 
> Thanks!

What does the timeframe for landing this look like?  If it needs to wait until we tag beta 7, then I need to let RelEng know.  RelEng is planning to go live with Mozmill unit tests on Thursday, but we don't want to go live with a perma-orange, which is what would happen without this patch.  Let me know.
(In reply to comment #4)
> What does the timeframe for landing this look like?  If it needs to wait until
> we tag beta 7, then I need to let RelEng know.  RelEng is planning to go live
> with Mozmill unit tests on Thursday, but we don't want to go live with a
> perma-orange, which is what would happen without this patch.  Let me know.

Lets ask Beltzner and Johnathan.
Don't have a good answer for you, Henrik - it's not clear what the question really is. We have what appears to be a test-fix patch, but it touches live code and is not a b7 blocker. By that metric, then, I'd say it's unlikely to land before b7 is tagged - but if that decision hurts us in other ways, it can be revisited. I just need to understand better what the decision is we're being asked to make.
(In reply to comment #6)
> be revisited. I just need to understand better what the decision is we're being
> asked to make.

Jeff and Clint are working on the buildbot integration for Mozmill, so a subset of our existing tests can get run on buildbot starting hopefully today or early next week. One of those selected tests for the initial testsuite triggers this crash. So we have two options:

1. Getting this patch landed for b7 and we can execute the complete testsuite
2. We have to remove this single test from the testsuite until this bug has been fixed
Comment on attachment 477297 [details] [diff] [review]
patch to correct the assertion

Let's just get this in.
Attachment #477297 - Flags: approval2.0?
Attachment #477297 - Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
Keywords: checkin-needed
blocking2.0: ? → beta8+
Setting assignee so this doesn't look like an unassigned blocker.
Assignee: general → ctalbert
fixed-in-tracemonkey?
This is assigned to me, but I'm not sure what you need me to do for it.  Please let me know what you expect.
Assignee: ctalbert → mrbkap
blocking2.0: beta8+ → beta7+
Is this checked in?
Minor, debug mode assert only.
Severity: critical → minor
Priority: -- → P2
Crashes are always marked as critical, and given by comment 0 we have a crash, right?
Severity: minor → critical
I'm going to check this into tracemonkey right now. It's a fatal assertion in debug builds only. We can leave this as critical for now.
Actually, all of this code went away with compartments.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: