Closed Bug 879239 Opened 8 years ago Closed 7 years ago
_bug588174 .html | Second listener should fire after first listener
Possible timing issue? https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=23733888&tree=Mozilla-Inbound Windows 7 32-bit mozilla-inbound debug test mochitest-4 on 2013-06-03 14:47:13 PDT for push 281b0297de65 slave: t-w732-ix-098 14:53:15 INFO - 17599 INFO TEST-START | /tests/layout/base/tests/test_bug588174.html 14:53:15 INFO - ++DOMWINDOW == 215 (0CAF9368) [serial = 2155] [outer = 05A58A28] 14:53:16 INFO - 17600 INFO TEST-PASS | /tests/layout/base/tests/test_bug588174.html | Bogus animation start time 14:53:16 INFO - 17601 INFO TEST-PASS | /tests/layout/base/tests/test_bug588174.html | First listener should fire after start 14:53:16 INFO - 17602 ERROR TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | /tests/layout/base/tests/test_bug588174.html | Second listener should fire after first listener 14:53:16 INFO - 17603 INFO TEST-END | /tests/layout/base/tests/test_bug588174.html | finished in 194ms
Possible, in theory, but seems really really fishy! I guess if we got serious clock skew (like of the "running backwards" variety).
Avi, Avi, he's our man. If he can't do it no-one can!
Heh, I was merely a proxy on previous issues ;) Anyway, this could be related to bug 858737 (same error description). That bug was rare but persistent, and it got worked-around rather than actually fixed. But this bug at least has a much clearer timeline: started around early-mid June and been relatively consistent and mildly frequent since. Also, it doesn't seem slave-specific. I don't recall a timing change around the beginning of June. Honza?
(I should be able to better handle mid-air bugzilla collisions without losing details which were already entered once).
(In reply to Avi Halachmi (:avih) from comment #36) > Anyway, this could be related to bug 858737 ... It's more than related. It's an identical test case and test, with the only difference that this test (test_bug588174.html) has one variable renamed for better readability (t->time). This raises 2 questions: 1. Why is the fail pattern here different than that of bug 858737? (this failed much more frequently before we worked-around bug 858737). To me it seems more than luck, but I can't think of a concrete reason. Maybe one of the tests runs more frequently or on different cases? 2. What would be the best practice (files/naming wise etc) for the same testcase which tests 2 different features? (test_bug569520.html: support rAF, test_bug588174.html: support callback arg in rAF). Surely, if a testcase proves problematic, we'd want to fix all its instances, but there was nothing linking these 2 tests other than one being a copy of the other.
Flags: needinfo?(honzab.moz) → needinfo?(bzbarsky)
> It's an identical test case and test Oh, fun. They used to be different back when test_bug569520.html tested the no-argument form of mozRequestAnimationFrame. But when we removed that in 704171 we apparently updated test_bug569520.html to use the one-arg form in the obvious way... and since test_bug588174.html was initially created by copying test_bug569520.html and updating it to use the one-arg form (when it was added as a test for the one-arg form), we ended up with two identical test files. ;) > To me it seems more than luck I suspect it's luck. > What would be the best practice (files/naming wise etc) for the same testcase which > tests 2 different features? test_requestAnimationFrame, test_requestAnimationFrameWithCallback?
Well, seems this bug is back. I'll fix it.
Bug 858737 had identical source code and intermittent failures as this. Applying the same fix here: making test_bug588174.html and test_bug569520.html identical again.
Assignee: nobody → avihpit
Attachment #8378260 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 8378260 [details] [diff] [review] Add some slack to test_bug588174.html r=me
Attachment #8378260 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla30
(In reply to TBPL Robot from comment #123) > RyanVM > https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=36175212&tree=Mozilla-B2g26- > v1.2 > Windows XP 32-bit mozilla-b2g26_v1_2 opt test mochitest-4 on 2014-03-14 > 18:08:45 > revision: 35a1e0eb3275 > slave: t-xp32-ix-059 > > 18259 ERROR TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | > /tests/layout/base/tests/test_bug588174.html | Second listener should fire > after first listener This doesn't include the fix: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g26_v1_2/annotate/35a1e0eb3275/layout/base/tests/test_bug588174.html
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.