Closed
Bug 654770
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
"ASSERTION: Won't check if this is chrome..." with accessibility enabled
Categories
(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect, P1)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: smaug)
References
Details
(Keywords: assertion, regression)
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
3.94 KB,
patch
|
sicking
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
###!!! ASSERTION: Won't check if this is chrome, you want to set aWantsUntrusted to PR_FALSE or make the aWantsUntrusted explicit by making optional_argc non-zero.: '!aWantsUntrusted || optional_argc > 1', file ../../../../content/base/src/nsDocument.cpp, line 6298
nsDocument::AddEventListener [nsDocument.cpp:6300]
nsRootAccessible::AddEventListeners [nsRootAccessible.cpp:267]
nsDocAccessible::Init [nsDocAccessible.cpp:614]
nsAccDocManager::CreateDocOrRootAccessible [nsAccDocManager.cpp:456]
nsAccDocManager::GetDocAccessible [nsAccDocManager.cpp:81]
nsApplicationAccessible::CacheChildren [nsApplicationAccessible.cpp:423]
nsAccessible::EnsureChildren [nsAccessible.cpp:3163]
nsAccDocManager::GetDocAccessible [nsAccDocManager.cpp:76]
nsAccessibilityService::ContentRemoved [nsAccessibilityService.cpp:542]
nsCSSFrameConstructor::ContentRemoved [nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp:7464]
nsCSSFrameConstructor::RecreateFramesForContent [nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp:9109]
nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessRestyledFrames [nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp:7982]
nsCSSFrameConstructor::RestyleElement [nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp:8064]
mozilla::css::RestyleTracker::ProcessOneRestyle [RestyleTracker.cpp:156]
mozilla::css::RestyleTracker::ProcessRestyles [RestyleTracker.cpp:222]
nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessPendingRestyles [nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp:11616]
PresShell::FlushPendingNotifications [nsPresShell.cpp:4791]
nsRefreshDriver::Notify [nsRefreshDriver.cpp:366]
nsTimerImpl::Fire [nsTimerImpl.cpp:428]
nsTimerEvent::Run [nsTimerImpl.cpp:522]
nsThread::ProcessNextEvent [nsThread.cpp:618]
NS_ProcessNextEvent_P [nsThreadUtils.cpp:250]
mozilla::ipc::MessagePump::Run [MessagePump.cpp:110]
MessageLoop::RunInternal [message_loop.cc:219]
MessageLoop::RunHandler [message_loop.cc:203]
MessageLoop::Run [message_loop.cc:175]
nsBaseAppShell::Run [nsBaseAppShell.cpp:191]
nsAppStartup::Run [nsAppStartup.cpp:224]
XRE_main [nsAppRunner.cpp:3682]
main [nsBrowserApp.cpp:158]
libc.so.6 + 0x15dec
Probably a regression from mozilla-central changeset f0ad024522bb:
user: Olli Pettay
date: Wed May 04 17:13:28 2011 +0300
summary: Bug 613634, make the 3rd paramater of add/removeEventListener optional, r=sicking
I noticed this bug because I hit it during fuzzing, but it also happens on Tinderbox (without turning Tinderbox orange, see bug 571613).
Before (does not hit the assertion):
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1304521011.1304524426.15516.gz&fulltext=1
After (hits the assertion):
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1304526794.1304530259.17266.gz&fulltext=1
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Btw, the assertion condition and message no longer match.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Uh, I need to go through even more code.
AddEventListener(NS_ConvertASCIItoUTF16(*e), this, PR_TRUE, PR_TRUE, 1);
should now pass 2 as the last parameter.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
I don't know how to test this - I mean I don't even know how to get
the assertion.
Assignee: nobody → Olli.Pettay
Attachment #530090 -
Flags: review?(bolterbugz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 530090 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Actually, I'll fix also other cases in this bug.
Attachment #530090 -
Flags: review?(bolterbugz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
I'll fix the assertion text elsewhere.
The a11y case is the only one which may change the behavior (back to what it was).
Attachment #530090 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #530104 -
Flags: review?(jonas)
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P1
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 530104 [details] [diff] [review] [review]
> The a11y case is the only one which may change the behavior (back to what it
> was).
Can you explain this a bit more?
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
Oh, actually, since it a11y passes PR_TRUE, I didn't break even that.
Bug 613634 just causes the assertion.
Btw, why does a11y listen for untrusted events?
Attachment #530104 -
Flags: review?(jonas) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7)
> Oh, actually, since it a11y passes PR_TRUE, I didn't break even that.
> Bug 613634 just causes the assertion.
>
> Btw, why does a11y listen for untrusted events?
XBL bindings fires events for us like XUL radio fires RadioStateChange event. Based on that we fire a11y events. If I get right these are untrusted events (or they were :) ).
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•