Closed Bug 615443 Opened 9 years ago Closed 9 years ago
Ordering of contributors localised in preferences can be incorrect
It turns out that the last part of the test for bug 553094 fails on Mac debug builds, for example: http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1291083603.1291084745.6871.gz http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1291083790.1291085283.9345.gz I disabled that part, and I'm filing this bug so that Mossop can investigate why, address the failure, and re-enable that part of the test. http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e57dc7264ff5
Why did it suddenly start failing?
(In reply to comment #1) > Why did it suddenly start failing? No idea. The failure might have happened earlier but was masked by the xpcshell broken-ness.
The test fails because the contributors are returned out of order because for some reason nsIPrefBranch.getChildList isn't returning the preferences in order. I'm not sure if that was ever meant to be guaranteed or not though.
Dan, is nsIPrefBranch.getChildList meant to be guaranteeing anything about the ordering of the results or do we have to sort the list ourselves? Also any idea why this might have changed recently?
We shouldn't have been assuming the ordering of this, sorting it makes sure it is what we want.
Summary: Investigate why the last part of the test for bug 553094 fails on Mac debug builds → Ordering of contributors localised in preferences can be incorrect
Forgot to re-enable the test
Whiteboard: [has patch][needs review rs]
Attachment #494555 - Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla) → review+
Whiteboard: [has patch][needs review rs] → [has patch]
This is a regression from 3.6 and so should be fixed.
blocking2.0: --- → final+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b8
Verified fixed based on check-in and not failing tests.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
(In reply to comment #4) > Dan, is nsIPrefBranch.getChildList meant to be guaranteeing anything about the > ordering of the results or do we have to sort the list ourselves? Also any idea > why this might have changed recently? We did change that code recently, but I can't see why it would've affected order. Regardless, you're right, it doesn't make guarantees.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.