Closed
Bug 929447
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Please schedule Android 4 reftests on all trunk trees and make them ride the trains
Categories
(Release Engineering :: General, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: dminor, Assigned: dminor)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 3 obsolete files)
2.90 KB,
patch
|
Callek
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Android 4 reftests are currently enabled on Cedar and Try and are currently green on Cedar. I think it is time to run them on every tree that Android 2.2 reftests are run. Most of the failures that have shown up since they have been run on Cedar have been non-intermittent and related to already fuzzy tests that need to be fuzzier (see bug 927085, bug 921021, bug 900542). With the low volume of commits to Cedar it is difficult to tell if these new failures are due to changes to rendering/layout code, or if a bug is causing changes to rendering results over time. If developers are causing these tests to fail, it is better that they investigate (and tweak the manifests if necessary), rather than me doing it well after the fact. If there is a rendering bug, this should uncover it quickly, and we can hide and/or disable the reftests again while it is investigated.
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #820336 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → kmoir
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 820336 [details] [diff] [review] bug929447.patch Review of attachment 820336 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- r- due to IRC convo about wanting this to ride trains.
Attachment #820336 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review-
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
So gecko_version isn't defined for mobile versions besides the esrs (see mobile_config.py starting at line 32). What should it be for each branch?
Updated•10 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(bugspam.Callek)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(bugspam.Callek) → needinfo?(bhearsum)
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
from sfink kmoir: when gecko_version is not defined, it's considered to be later than any version that *is* defined. In other words, the default means "most recent", and any explicit setting means "locked to older version N".
Flags: needinfo?(bhearsum)
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
More info sfink kmoir: when gecko_version is not defined, it's considered to be later than any version that *is* defined. In other words, the default means "most recent", and any explicit setting means "locked to older version N". kmoir sfink: thanks. My code was not finding any branches that didn't have it defined, I'm working fixing that kmoir: yeah, the usual pattern is 1. set something = current_behavior; 2. if version < K, set something = older_behavior sfink kmoir: but there are several that also do if version is at least K, set something = new_behavior kmoir okay sfink kmoir: the first is done with items_before, the second with items_at_least sfink I really should document it better, especially considering how long it took me to get my head around it
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
tested in staging
Attachment #820336 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #821854 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 821854 [details] [diff] [review] bug929447.patch are you sure this is the tested patch? looks like this one removes it from everything !== cedar/try (and less than gecko 26)
Attachment #821854 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review-
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
Right that's what we want to do. Don't run these tests on branches where gecko < 26 and in that case only run on cedar and try. Do run the tests for all other branches where gecko >= 26 http://dev-master01.build.scl1.mozilla.com:8036/builders Thus with this patch they will run on m-c and m-i and some other project branches, today they don't run there.
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 821854 [details] [diff] [review] bug929447.patch Review of attachment 821854 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ahhh right, for some reason I was thinking of items_before the wrong way around and confusing myself. ::: mozilla-tests/mobile_config.py @@ +1142,2 @@ > if branch in ('cedar', 'try'): > continue remove |if branch in... continue| given the new logic won't need that anymore
Attachment #821854 -
Flags: review- → review+
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
something here is in production
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
"Every" tree was a bad idea for which I take full responsibility. Once I get the reftests green again (bug 930985) we should turn them on just for inbound and mozilla-central.
Summary: Please schedule Android 4 reftests on every tree that Android 2.2 reftests run → Please schedule Android 4 reftests on m-c and inbound
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 821905 [details] [diff] [review] bug929447-2.patch dminor asked me to revert this because tests are not green again
Attachment #821905 -
Flags: checked-in+ → checked-in-
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
reverted in production via reconfig
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
And what he means by "inbound and mozilla-central" is absolutely not that thing which nobody ever means even when they say it, he means "for all trunk trees, and then make them ride the trains after that."
Summary: Please schedule Android 4 reftests on m-c and inbound → Please schedule Android 4 reftests on all trunk trees and make them ride the trains
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•10 years ago
|
||
Thanks Philor!
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•10 years ago
|
||
Latest run on Cedar today was green: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Cedar&showall=1&rev=9aa828994230, so I think this can go forward. Once these are scheduled, I'll watch the results and update the manifests as necessary.
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
Looks like we have one unexpected result on Cedar as of last Friday. I'll file a bug to fix. Callek, will you have time to look at this this quarter?
Flags: needinfo?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dan Minor [:dminor] from comment #18) > Looks like we have one unexpected result on Cedar as of last Friday. I'll > file a bug to fix. > > Callek, will you have time to look at this this quarter? I *think* so (note: "This Quarter" means effectively "in the next 2 weeks", given the end-of-month vaca)
Assignee: kmoir → bugspam.Callek
Flags: needinfo?(bugspam.Callek)
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•10 years ago
|
||
Callek, mcote asked me to put together a patch for you to take a look at. I removed the current code that schedules on Cedar and Try and replaced it with code based on what was done recently for cpp unittests.
Attachment #821854 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #821905 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8349585 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment 21•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8349585 [details] [diff] [review] Schedule panda reftests to ride the trains Review of attachment 8349585 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- this should do what we want
Attachment #8349585 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: bugspam.Callek → dminor
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•10 years ago
|
||
Thanks, things are looking green again on Cedar, so pushed to: https://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbot-configs/rev/2d4437269255
Comment 23•10 years ago
|
||
in production
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•5 years ago
|
Component: General Automation → General
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•