Closed Bug 780892 Opened 13 years ago Closed 13 years ago

Split testFocusAndSearch.js into two test modules

Categories

(Mozilla QA Graveyard :: Mozmill Tests, defect, P2)

defect

Tracking

(firefox17 fixed, firefox18 fixed, firefox19 fixed, firefox20 fixed, firefox-esr10 fixed, firefox-esr17 fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
firefox17 --- fixed
firefox18 --- fixed
firefox19 --- fixed
firefox20 --- fixed
firefox-esr10 --- fixed
firefox-esr17 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: vladmaniac, Assigned: andrei)

References

()

Details

(Whiteboard: s=121210 u=enhancement c=search p=1)

Attachments

(2 files, 5 obsolete files)

Right now /testSearch/testFocusAndSearch.js has two test functions and we need to split those into separate modules Please see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=761984#c37 for an official decision about this
Assignee: nobody → vlad.mozbugs
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Depends on: 761984
This will be addressed once the dependency has landed
Attached patch patch v1.0 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Splitting testFocusAndSearch into two new modules: * testClickAndSearch.js * testShortcutAndSearch.js
Attachment #651317 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #651317 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Comment on attachment 651317 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1.0 >-[testFocusAndSearch.js] >+[testClickAndSearch.js] > disabled = Bug 761984 - Failure in testFocusAndSearch | Disconnect Error: Application unexpectedly closed This line should have been removed from the file on bug 761984. Please post a follow-up there. >+[testShortcutAndSearch.js] I would better bundle them together by using testSearchVia(Focus|Shortcut).
Attachment #651317 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #651317 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #651317 - Flags: review-
Attached patch patch v1.1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
* renamed test modules * updated manifest
Attachment #651317 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #651647 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #651647 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
This will not apply cleanly on mozilla-esr10, so if v1.1 is a r+, I will immediately post the patch for Firefox 10
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Dave, I assume you missed to set the r+ on the patch, right?
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Attachment #651647 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #651647 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #651647 - Flags: review+
It looks like that restoreDefaultEngines doesn't work as expected. The shortcut test is failing now: http://mozmill-ci.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/d87d47fd1034f072b9bece6ee6402324 Backed-out: http://hg.mozilla.org/qa/mozmill-tests/rev/0a9a654e62bd
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
I ran both tests, but not sequentially. A full testrun should be run before submitting a patch.
We can always add a search engine with a different name in the shortcut test, and I think would be a decent band aid. Furthermore, we need a new bug to address restoreDefaultEngines problem
We want a fix not a workaround. Means we have to get restoreDefaultEngines fixed/enhanced before we can push this patch again. Please file a bug so it can be addressed.
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
(In reply to Dave Hunt (:davehunt) from comment #9) > I ran both tests, but not sequentially. A full testrun should be run before > submitting a patch. A testrun was run of course, but this fails only when both tests are ran one after each other. Passing testrun: http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/d87d47fd1034f072b9bece6ee644df57 Failing testrun: http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/d87d47fd1034f072b9bece6ee644d4dc
The passing testrun linked in comment 12 is for restart tests. I doubt the non-restart testrun would ever pass as one test will always run after the other, and it appears that the test fails due to an artefact that is not cleaned up.
(In reply to Dave Hunt (:davehunt) from comment #13) > The passing testrun linked in comment 12 is for restart tests. I doubt the > non-restart testrun would ever pass as one test will always run after the > other, and it appears that the test fails due to an artefact that is not > cleaned up. Ouch, wrong link - meant http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/d87d47fd1034f072b9bece6ee644b9ce
Depends on: 783197
(In reply to Maniac Vlad Florin (:vladmaniac) from comment #14) > Ouch, wrong link - meant > http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/ > d87d47fd1034f072b9bece6ee644b9ce That testrun does not include the separate tests testSearchViaFocus.js and testSearchViaShortcut.js, so the patch was likely not applied.
Assignee: vlad.mozbugs → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Priority: -- → P2
Whiteboard: s=121119 u=enhancement c=search p=1
Whiteboard: s=121119 u=enhancement c=search p=1 → s= u=enhancement c=search p=1
Whiteboard: s= u=enhancement c=search p=1 → [mentor=whimboo][lang=py][good first bug]
Whiteboard: [mentor=whimboo][lang=py][good first bug] → [mentor=whimboo][lang=js][good first bug]
Whiteboard: [mentor=whimboo][lang=js][good first bug] → s=121210 u=enhancement c=search p=1
Assignee: nobody → andrei.eftimie
I've run some testruns with Vlad's original code ( attachment 651647 [details] [diff] [review] ), and had no Failures. Here are the testruns: 20.0a1 us - Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/352218d7e3125c857fc1d37167fc8a02 20.0a1 fr - OS X - Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db03530a 20.0a1 fr - Win XP - Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db0347c8 I've also tested the problematic method restoreDefaultEngines and it appears to be working correctly (the Engine installed in setupModule is correctly uninstalled in teardown ) Please advise on how to proceed. Given no new failures, I would propose to reintegrate the patch.
Andrei, the restoreDefaultEngines() was fixed in bug 783197. After Henrik or Dave's commit you need to proceed by checking the other branches as well.
I have now ran the tests on all channels. Aurora - 19.0a2 - Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db0fb307 Espre - 10.0.11esrpre - Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db0fda60 Espre - 17.0.1esrpre - Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db0fe506 Release - 17.0.1 - Tests Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db0ffc63 -- 2 Failures - seem to be related to bug 789987 Beta - 18.0 - Passed http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db100cbf bug 783197 appears to have fixed any problems regarding problems we've had here. Thanks Andreea
(In reply to Andrei Eftimie from comment #16) > Please advise on how to proceed. > Given no new failures, I would propose to reintegrate the patch. That's what should be done if we want to mark it as fixed. Thanks for the investigation.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment on attachment 651647 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1.1 The patch doesn't apply anymore. Please update and upload a new version.
Attachment #651647 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached patch patch v1.2 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Here is an updated patch. Also ran a test to be sure everything is still good: http://mozmill-crowd.blargon7.com/#/functional/report/a11aa7b15f4e571fd6fe21a2db279e5e
Attachment #691804 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #691804 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #691804 - Flags: review?(andreea.matei)
Attached patch patch v1.3 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
As per :AlexLakatos recommendation I have: - removed the commented Litmus tests - renamed the original file into one of the new ones, and newly created just 1 file
Attachment #691804 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #691804 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #691804 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #691804 - Flags: review?(andreea.matei)
Attachment #691816 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #691816 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #691816 - Flags: review?(andreea.matei)
Comment on attachment 691816 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1.3 Review of attachment 691816 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Looks fine. There are only two white-space issues which need to be fixed. With that updated r=me. ::: tests/functional/testSearch/testFocusAndSearch.js @@ +7,3 @@ > > const LOCAL_TEST_FOLDER = collector.addHttpResource('../../../data/'); > +const LOCAL_TEST_PAGE = LOCAL_TEST_FOLDER + nit: trialing whitespace. ::: tests/functional/testSearch/testSearchViaShortcut.js @@ +5,5 @@ > +// Include necessary modules > +var search = require("../../../lib/search"); > + > +const LOCAL_TEST_FOLDER = collector.addHttpResource('../../../data/'); > +const LOCAL_TEST_PAGE = LOCAL_TEST_FOLDER + nit: trailing whitespace.
Attachment #691816 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #691816 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #691816 - Flags: review?(andreea.matei)
Attachment #691816 - Flags: review-
Attached patch patch v1.4 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Attachment #691816 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #692207 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Andrei, please add a blank line at the end of each test as the style guide requires and update the commit message with "r=hskupin, r=dhunt, r=amatei" - these are the names we are using here. Thanks
Attached patch Patch v1.5Splinter Review
- updated revier list to correct names - added empty newline at the end of each file
Attachment #692207 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #692207 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #692237 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Comment on attachment 692237 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1.5 Review of attachment 692237 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Just a note in general. Please request review from Andreea, Dave, and myself. That way it can be faster processed in the future.
Attachment #692237 - Flags: review?(hskupin) → review+
http://hg.mozilla.org/qa/mozmill-tests/rev/584709b010d2 (default) Please check tomorrows results and if the patch applies cleanly on the other branches, so we can get it backported.
(In reply to Andrei Eftimie from comment #29) > Can be marked as resolved No, please check my last comment. We need backports.
Patch for the mozilla-esr10 branch. attachment 692237 [details] [diff] [review] applies cleanly to all other branches
Attachment #693847 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #693847 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #693847 - Flags: review?(andreea.matei)
Comment on attachment 693847 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1.5 espre10 Review of attachment 693847 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Looks good. Landed as: http://hg.mozilla.org/qa/mozmill-tests/rev/dee4259338d7
Attachment #693847 - Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #693847 - Flags: review?(dave.hunt)
Attachment #693847 - Flags: review?(andreea.matei)
Attachment #693847 - Flags: review+
Attachment #693847 - Flags: checkin+
Looks like we are done here. Marking as fixed.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
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: