Closed Bug 636379 Opened 10 years ago Closed 8 years ago

Intermittent WinXP (and no other platform except WinXP) TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS (not TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL, TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS) | dynamic-text-04.svg | image comparison (==)

Categories

(Core :: SVG, defect)

All
Windows XP
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla12

People

(Reporter: philor, Unassigned)

References

Details

(Keywords: intermittent-failure, Whiteboard: [test marked as random])

Attachments

(1 obsolete file)

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1298487014.1298488395.13658.gz
Rev3 WINNT 5.1 mozilla-central opt test reftest on 2011/02/23 10:50:14
s: talos-r3-xp-013

REFTEST INFO | Loading a blank page
REFTEST TEST-START | file:///C:/talos-slave/test/build/reftest/tests/layout/reftests/svg/dynamic-text-04.svg
REFTEST TEST-START | file:///C:/talos-slave/test/build/reftest/tests/layout/reftests/svg/dynamic-text-04-ref.svg
REFTEST TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS | file:///C:/talos-slave/test/build/reftest/tests/layout/reftests/svg/dynamic-text-04.svg | image comparison (==)
REFTEST   IMAGE: ...
REFTEST INFO | Loading a blank page

I would expect this extremely intermittent pass of the test that bug 623405 marked as failing on WinXP to just be, as I said mistakenly of the other test there,

[[[
Honestly, I don't have the slightest idea what made me think that "drawn in a
random spot" somehow meant "drawn in a random spot which will never be the
right spot."
]]]

except that I'm a little puzzled by the way that the log only shows one data URI, rather than the two that I think I've seen the few times I've actually paid any attention to the details of reftest failures.
Attached patch hg changeset patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Why do we want to have this test marked as random? It doesn't sound to fail THAT much...
Keywords: checkin-needed
Hardware: x86 → All
I think you mean: it doesn't seem to *pass* that much. :)

It's nearly-perma-failing on Windows XP -- so it marked as a failing -- but it occasionally randomly passes. (hence this bug)

IMHO, flagging it as random-on-windows-XP would be accurate and appropriate in this case.
Though it also would be interesting to find out if the test ever started (reliably) passing, so I can see the case for leaving the annotation as-is, too. (given the relatively low level of orange-noise that it's causing now)
Oh, my bad... I didn't see it was changing fails-if to random-if, I was too focused on the random-if.
(In reply to comment #8)
> Though it also would be interesting to find out if the test ever started
> (reliably) passing, so I can see the case for leaving the annotation as-is,
> too. (given the relatively low level of orange-noise that it's causing now)

I agree. The fact it's currently marked fails-if only reverse the issue: we should only mark something as orange if we really have no other choices.
If someone wants to write that test, which isn't this bug, and which ought to be named something like bug_421587_unfixed and ought to be in bug 421587, I'd think that all they would need to do would be to have something like four iframes with rotated text in them. Since we're only accidentally getting it right four out of several thousand times, making sure we never get four right at once ought to be enough to tell us that bug 421587 still exists.
Attachment #526782 - Attachment is obsolete: true
The changes in bug 598482 will likely make this happen more, because the test will paint fewer times.

That could be "fixed" by putting the actual rotation off on a requestAnimationFrame callback or three, I suspect.
I suspect that bug 525095 has much reduced the amount of randomness resulting in this test passing much more frequently than it used to.
Summary: Intermittent WinXP TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS | dynamic-text-04.svg → Intermittent WinXP TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS | dynamic-text-04.svg | image comparison (==)
(In reply to Robert Longson from comment #77)
> I suspect that bug 525095 has much reduced the amount of randomness
> resulting in this test passing much more frequently than it used to.

Yeah, it seems to be passing half the time, and failing half the time.

I can't see any visual difference between the failing image and the reference, so this seems low priority. For now I marked the test as random:

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/eea95e86541f
Test annotation landed:
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/eea95e86541f

Leaving this bug open for now, but you can resolve it if there's no more work planned here.
Whiteboard: [orange] → [orange][test marked as random]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla12
Any work on why this is random would take place in bug 421587.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(and to be clear, we shouldn't be getting any more oranges from this, since it was marked random in comment 167)
Depends on: 421587
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Nice try, but it's not that easy to get out of filing new failures.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Summary: Intermittent WinXP TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS | dynamic-text-04.svg | image comparison (==) → Intermittent WinXP (and no other platform except WinXP) TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS (not TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL, TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS) | dynamic-text-04.svg | image comparison (==)
Depends on: 768297
Whiteboard: [orange][test marked as random] → [test marked as random]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.