Closed Bug 847124 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

Intermittent browser_blocklist.js | sub-test testBlockingExistingProvider failed: Error: SocialService.addProvider: provider with this origin already exists | browser_social_multiprovider.js | correct number of providers listed in the menu and a leak

Categories

(Firefox Graveyard :: SocialAPI, defect)

Product:
Firefox Graveyard
Component:
SocialAPI
Platform:
x86_64
macOS
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(firefox24 fixed, firefox25 fixed, firefox26 fixed)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
Firefox 26
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
firefox24 --- fixed
firefox25 --- fixed
firefox26 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: RyanVM, Assigned: scaraveo)

References

Details

(Keywords: intermittent-failure, memory-leak)

Attachments

(1 file)

fix intermittent failure
15.44 KB, patch
markh
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=20233574&tree=Mozilla-Inbound Rev4 MacOSX Snow Leopard 10.6 mozilla-inbound debug test mochitest-browser-chrome on 2013-03-01 13:44:36 PST for push 23d0ee5b4483 slave: talos-r4-snow-053 13:53:56 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/social/browser_blocklist.js | sub-test testBlockingExistingProvider failed: Error: SocialService.addProvider: provider with this origin already exists 13:54:32 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | chrome://mochitests/content/browser/browser/base/content/test/social/browser_social_multiprovider.js | correct number of providers listed in the menu - Got 3, expected 2 15:03:11 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 5903957 bytes during test execution 15:03:11 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 2 instances of AsyncStatement with size 88 bytes each (176 bytes total) 15:03:11 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 2000 instances of AtomImpl with size 40 bytes each (80000 bytes total) 15:03:11 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 1 instance of BackstagePass with size 48 bytes 15:03:11 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 1 instance of BodyRule with size 32 bytes 15:03:11 WARNING - TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | automationutils.processLeakLog() | leaked 1 instance of CalculateFrecencyFunction with size 24 bytes The leak analyzer says that 6 DOMWindows were leaked.
FWIW, the failure in comment 2 appears to be a different (and even more confounding) orange in browser_social_activation.
Depends on: 886300
Shane, any more ideas on this?
Flags: needinfo?(mixedpuppy)
Between this bug, bug 886300 and bug 846600 I did see some things via the logs that I am fixing. I'm not certain they are the ultimate cause, but they do clean up a couple situations that fix some potential intermittent failures. https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=2cc3b1f3b0ca
Flags: needinfo?(mixedpuppy)
This should fix some stuff I saw in logs throughout the blocklist bugs (this, 886300, 846600). I say "should", since I'm unable to repro via try with the patch. In the least, it doesn't break anything (see above try) :) Some of these changes were necessary anyway (e.g. uninstall callback) in some of the new work going on in bug 891225 and bug 891219. stuff I saw in logs: - provider from browser_addons.js leaked past the end of testing in that file (I was able to repro this one locally) - window watcher from browser_blocklist leaked into a much later test - blocklist cleanup not actually cleaning up, the simplifies by just resetting the blocklist rather than using an "empty" blocklist file.
Attachment #795520 - Flags: review?(mhammond)
Comment on attachment 795520 [details] [diff] [review] fix intermittent failure Review of attachment 795520 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: browser/base/content/test/social/browser_blocklist.js @@ +134,5 @@ > + let domwindow = aXULWindow.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIInterfaceRequestor) > + .getInterface(Ci.nsIDOMWindow); > + > + domwindow.addEventListener("unload", function _unload() { > + domwindow.removeEventListener("unload", _unload); missing 3rd param of false here @@ +158,3 @@ > // the act of blocking should cause a 'provider-removed' notification > // from SocialService. > + SocialService.registerProviderListener(function providerListener(topic) { is it possible the order of these might cause orange? ie, that the provider-removed notification might come before the addProvider callback has fired?
Attachment #795520 - Flags: review?(mhammond) → review+
(In reply to Mark Hammond (:markh) from comment #40) > Comment on attachment 795520 [details] [diff] [review] > @@ +158,3 @@ > > // the act of blocking should cause a 'provider-removed' notification > > // from SocialService. > > + SocialService.registerProviderListener(function providerListener(topic) { > > is it possible the order of these might cause orange? ie, that the > provider-removed notification might come before the addProvider callback has > fired? no, we set the blocklist inside the addProvider callback, after registering the listener.
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b8217f322b54
Assignee: nobody → scaraveo
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 26
Product: Firefox → Firefox Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: