Disabling a few mochitests this week, and upcoming changes next week to browser-chrome
gavin at gavinsharp.com
Tue Aug 26 19:52:44 UTC 2014
Thanks for the update! Very helpful.
For bug 1058695, it looks like bz/khuey are trying to rope in Nikhil to
help - Nikhil, I don't know what the rest of your current workload looks
like, but if you could help chase that bug down that would be very helpful.
For bug 1041594, it looks like we need to figure out why Andrea's debug
patch logging didn't show up in the log. Perhaps you two could connect to
sort that out and get him a good try-debugging setup?
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Joel Maher <joel.maher at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to post an update. We are very close to achieving all green
> tests on browser-chrome (tracking in bug 1057512)- there are 3 bugs
> *Bug 525284* <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525284> - browser_bug400731.js
> is fragile, not always passing
> ** patch for review, should be resolved this week
> *Bug 963075* <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=963075> - browser_pdfjs_[main|views].js
> leaks until shutdown when run as a standalone directory
> ** ttaubert found a root cause (*Bug 1058695*
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1058695> - Promises can
> keep a page alive and even prevent Firefox from shutting down)
> *Bug 1041594* <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1041594> - browser_mozAudioChannel_muted.js
> crashes when run as a directory instead of a full suite
> ** initial patch, would like to know priority of this as it requires a bit
> more work
> We are really close to green, can we ensure Bug 1058695 and bug 1041594
> have owners and a reasonably normal priority so we can finish this
> project? If this is unrealistic, we could discuss temporarily disabling
> the tests until there is time to fix the issues.
> Thanks again for all the work so far on this.
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin at gavinsharp.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Ed Morley <emorley at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> > Agreed that this case is possibly slightly different - however this
>> > is merely exposing already flaky tests - and this change is very much
>> > overdue. If the tests mentioned are really that important, then could we
>> > please get people allocated to fixing them?
>> We have allocated people to fixing them. These bugs were explicitly
>> assigned in the 34.2 iteration:
>> Bug 947574
>> Bug 1002439
>> Bug 1041537
>> and we've made some significant progress in tracking them down. But as
>> you know, fixing these issues can be relatively difficult.
>> > Ultimately no one individual test should have the right to destroy the
>> > for a suite - and if we don't have this policy as a rapid (and
>> > in practice) means to control rogue tests, then the only other hammer
>> > sheriffs have is to hide entire suites.
>> If we're reduced to interacting with each other with hammers, then
>> we've failed. Firefox peers will not ignore needinfo or review
>> requests. If you feel that they are, then you can escalate to me as
>> module owner. I do not ignore requests, and am quite responsive to
>> email and IRC pings.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the firefox-dev