Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central
mbanner at mozillamessaging.com
Sat Jun 12 09:52:32 UTC 2010
On 12/06/2010 03:00, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 1:39 PM, Dan Mosedale wrote:
>> On 6/10/10 4:59 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>>> Now I know TB has required tests, but we are still in a way "O,
>>> orange; must be a perma orange, likely not my fault" general
>>> mentality on trunk.
>> Now that 3.1 is in release candidate mode, the trunk is being whipped
>> gradually back into shape.
> Of course, but TB also runs much less tests than SeaMonkey, even with
> its added MozMill tests (That SM does not yet run). I don't know of
> any way to get TB to run the relevant tests reliably, but that does
> make it less tests as well that are run relating to core code.
I assume by "much less tests" you're referring to mochitest, reftest and
all. If so, that has basically been a conscious decision that we do not
need to run those tests constantly because Firefox is running them for
us. Yes, some of the core code base is slightly different, and there may
be one or two areas that running the tests against Thunderbird may
reveal something, but on the whole, we're just letting the Firefox
builders do the work for us there.
There was talk about running reftests occasionally (because we can),
e.g. near/at release times, I expect that may come once we do packaged
tests, as it would be easier to do.
Re getting TB tests run reliably. AFAIK apart from one intermittent
failure (bug 552804), all the MozMill tests for Thunderbird are pretty
stable on Windows and Mac - Linux we know has various issues.
xpcshell-tests should also be pretty stable. So if you're getting
problems running tests, then that's something you should be filing a bug
on (or a new thread) and getting it resolved.
More information about the tb-planning