Closed Bug 762798 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

l10n tests shouldn't make use of window title but windowtype property

Categories

(Mozilla QA Graveyard :: Mozmill Tests, defect)

defect
Not set
critical

Tracking

(firefox13 fixed, firefox14 fixed, firefox15 fixed, firefox16 fixed, firefox-esr10 fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
firefox13 --- fixed
firefox14 --- fixed
firefox15 --- fixed
firefox16 --- fixed
firefox-esr10 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: whimboo, Assigned: whimboo)

References

()

Details

(Whiteboard: [mozmill-l10n][lib][mozmill-test-failure][qa-])

Attachments

(1 file)

I'm absolutely not sure what's going on here but some locales are failing by checking a sub window of the preferences dialog. One example is 'is':

http://mozmill-ci.blargon7.com/#/l10n/report/fdec829b93b19c73985be1d38878292c

Not sure yet, which window it is. I will have to find this out next.
Summary: For some locales l10n tests are broken because we can't find a child window in the preferences dialog → For some locales l10n tests are broken because we can't find the opened cookie exception window
Whiteboard: [mozmill-l10n][lib]
So in the 'is' case it's because of a broken property string:

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/l10n/mozilla-aurora/is/file/195eb83e843e/browser/chrome/browser/preferences/preferences.properties#l19

cookiepermissionstitle=Undanþágur - Smákökur\n

The final backslash shouldn't be there. That means we should always try to get the window by type and not by title. So we wouldn't be affected by those issues.
Here an example with the fix in-place:
http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/l10n/report/87961186c2b807b7747aa7e6d4076279
Summary: For some locales l10n tests are broken because we can't find the opened cookie exception window → l10n tests shouldn't make use of window title but windowtype property
Attached patch Patch v1Splinter Review
Attachment #631323 - Flags: review?(l10n)
Whiteboard: [mozmill-l10n][lib] → [mozmill-l10n][lib][mozmill-test-failure]
Comment on attachment 631323 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1

Review of attachment 631323 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I can do a feedback+ on this patch, but not a real review, in particular as I have no estimate on teh impact of the dom-utils changes.

The general idea to identify windows by type sounds good to me, too.

I wonder if the "surprising" titles would actually make a good test themselves?
Attachment #631323 - Flags: review?(l10n) → feedback+
Comment on attachment 631323 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1

(In reply to Axel Hecht [:Pike] from comment #4)
> I guess I can do a feedback+ on this patch, but not a real review, in
> particular as I have no estimate on teh impact of the dom-utils changes.

Alright. The changes there only affect l10n tests and no other test-run.

> The general idea to identify windows by type sounds good to me, too.
> 
> I wonder if the "surprising" titles would actually make a good test
> themselves?

Yes, all that should be a separate test where we check the translation and functionality of items. But that's a whole different story we will not have time to work on in the foreseeable future.

Anthony, mind giving a review today? This failure kills some of our testruns and I would like to get it checked into each branch. Thanks.
Attachment #631323 - Flags: review?(anthony.s.hughes)
Comment on attachment 631323 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1

Review of attachment 631323 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Patch looks fine to me. Please land.
Attachment #631323 - Flags: review?(anthony.s.hughes) → review+
Whiteboard: [mozmill-l10n][lib][mozmill-test-failure] → [mozmill-l10n][lib][mozmill-test-failure][qa-]
Product: Mozilla QA → Mozilla QA Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: