Closed
Bug 822281
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Intermittent xpcom/tests/unit/test_bug325418.js | 0 == 1
Categories
(Core :: XPCOM, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla22
People
(Reporter: emorley, Assigned: bzbarsky)
Details
(Keywords: intermittent-failure)
Attachments
(1 file)
Rev3 WINNT 5.1 mozilla-inbound debug test xpcshell on 2012-12-15 14:24:13 PST for push d685cc4b4741 slave: talos-r3-xp-087 https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=17982830&tree=Mozilla-Inbound { TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | C:\talos-slave\test\build\xpcshell\tests\xpcom\tests\unit\test_bug325418.js | test failed (with xpcshell return code: 0), see following log: >>>>>>> ### XPCOM_MEM_LEAK_LOG defined -- logging leaks to c:\docume~1\cltbld\locals~1\temp\tmp83ygf1\runxpcshelltests_leaks.log TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | test 1 pending TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | test 2 pending TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | test 2 finished TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | running event loop TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | C:/talos-slave/test/build/xpcshell/tests/xpcom/tests/unit/test_bug325418.js | 0 == 1 - See following stack: JS frame :: C:\talos-slave\test\build\xpcshell\head.js :: do_throw :: line 452 JS frame :: C:\talos-slave\test\build\xpcshell\head.js :: _do_check_eq :: line 546 JS frame :: C:\talos-slave\test\build\xpcshell\head.js :: do_check_eq :: line 567 JS frame :: C:/talos-slave/test/build/xpcshell/tests/xpcom/tests/unit/test_bug325418.js :: observeTC2 :: line 39 native frame :: <unknown filename> :: <TOP_LEVEL> :: line 0 }
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
Any idea why this has started failing every now and then after a year of everything being okay?
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
Reporter | ||
Comment 32•10 years ago
|
||
Boris, as test reviewer, any ideas? It's failing at: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/3825fdbcec62/xpcom/tests/unit/test_bug325418.js#l39
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Whiteboard: [disable-me 2013-04-01]
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 33•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #728323 -
Flags: review?(avihpit)
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → bzbarsky
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [disable-me 2013-04-01] → [need review][disable-me 2013-04-01]
Reporter | ||
Comment 34•10 years ago
|
||
Thank you Boris :-)
Whiteboard: [need review][disable-me 2013-04-01] → [need review]
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 35•10 years ago
|
||
No problem. ;)
Comment 36•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 728323 [details] [diff] [review] Stop assuming XPCOM timers can't fire early (at least where IEEE doubles are concerned). Review of attachment 728323 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- r=me if the infallible part is unrelated and removed. ::: docshell/base/nsIDocShell.idl @@ +229,5 @@ > > /** > * Attribute stating whether or not images should be loaded. > */ > + [infallible] attribute boolean allowImages; Am I missing how is this relevant, or different than other nearby booleans which were not modified? ::: xpcom/tests/unit/test_bug325418.js @@ +16,5 @@ > // Stop timer, so it doesn't repeat (if test runs slowly). > timer.cancel(); > > + // Actual delay may not be exact, so convert to seconds and round. > + do_check_eq(Math.round((Date.now() - gStartTime1) / 1000), This works for integral values of gStartTime1/2 as tolerance of +/- 0.5, which would be OK for this test with these values of 5, 1. Might have been nicer as Math.abs(Date.now() - gStartTime1) < 0.5 (or some smaller value), but not required.
Comment 37•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Avi Halachmi (:avih) from comment #36) > ...Might have been > nicer as Math.abs(Date.now() - gStartTime1) < 0.5 (or some smaller value), > but not required. Ermm... Math.abs((Date.now() - gStartTime1) - kExpectedDelay1)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 38•10 years ago
|
||
> r=me if the infallible part is unrelated and removed. It's totally unrelated, and shall be removed. It was just in that tree when I started editing, apparently. Good catch! > which would be OK for this test with these values of 5, 1. Right. If the timeout values weren't those we'd have to do something smarter, but they are, so...
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 40•10 years ago
|
||
Avi, did you mean to mark r+ on the patch?
Comment hidden (Legacy TBPL/Treeherder Robot) |
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 42•10 years ago
|
||
Assuming so, and trying to avoid extra randomorange: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/2a09d354053f
Flags: in-testsuite-
Whiteboard: [need review]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla22
Comment 43•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 728323 [details] [diff] [review] Stop assuming XPCOM timers can't fire early (at least where IEEE doubles are concerned). (In reply to Boris Zbarsky (:bz) from comment #40) > Avi, did you mean to mark r+ on the patch? Sure. By the time I finished playing with splinter I forgot to change to r+. Guess it's acceptable for a first review, even if a bit messy (/1000!) ;)
Attachment #728323 -
Flags: review?(avihpit) → review+
Comment 44•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2a09d354053f
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•