632396 - [SeaMonkey] mochitest-browser-chrome: about 170 test failures caused by "incompatible" DOMi

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: Startup & Profiles, defect)

Description

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

http://build.mozillamessaging.com/tinderboxpushlog/?tree=SeaMonkey
See "[e-mail] – Fri Feb 4 02:46:52 2011 PST"
Regression timeframe:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=f2a6a78478dc&tochange=51f36c6a7d38
Bug 627328...

I'm not sure whether this is a Core regression or not-yet-updated (SeaMonkey) tests.

Comment 1

[Mounir Lamouri (:mounir)]

It's hard to find which tests are exactly failing in SeaMonkey's TBPL. Could you given me a [few] mxr links? I had a test that needed to be updated in mozilla-central so it might be the same issue.

Comment 2

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

I ran toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/browser/browser_bug557956.js locally
and noticed that bug 631286 should help, if not fix this issue...

Maybe there's a "trick" that I'm not aware of, as updating SeaMonkey version was the changeset just before comment 0 timeframe :-/

Let's hope that's just that.

Comment 3

[Robert Kaiser]

Not sure how much what's set on AMO matters here. If it does, we'll in addition need to file bugs on venkman and ChatZilla updating their info on AMO for compatibility with 2.1b3, which their maintainers need to set.

Comment 4

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #2)
> and noticed that bug 631286 should help, if not fix this issue...

Bug 631286, indeed :-<


(In reply to comment #3)
> Not sure how much what's set on AMO matters here.

AMO should not matter, afaik.

Comment 5

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1297218906.1297220835.10413.gz
OS X 10.5 comm-central-trunk debug test mochitest-other on 2011/02/08 18:35:06
{
mochitest-browser-chrome: 11221/0/8
}

V.Fixed

Comment 6

[[e-mail]]

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Not sure how much what's set on AMO matters here.
> AMO should not matter, afaik.
Although Mossop told me on IRC that AMO data overrides install.rdf, we shouldn't be pinging AMO on a test run, should we?

Comment 7

[Robert Kaiser]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Although Mossop told me on IRC that AMO data overrides install.rdf, we
> shouldn't be pinging AMO on a test run, should we?

And we probably aren't as browser-chrome is green. We still probably should file bugs on those two add-ons to correct the AMO settings (or grab a hold of their maintainers on IRC).