Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Justin Wood (Callek) callek at
Sun Jun 13 02:05:51 UTC 2010

  On 6/12/2010 5:52 AM, Mark Banner wrote:
>  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.

For 99.9% of the tests, I agree; for the other .1% I don't think the 
effort to try and run them is worth it.

> 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.

I _think_ reftests are the most likely to continue to pass between 
Firefox and Thunderbird/SeaMonkey, due to reftests primarily testing 
Gecko Rendering stuff not preferences/code of other parts of the app 

> 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.

I agree TB is in a MUCH MUCH better state than SM as far as reliable 
tests, that said I am starting to find time to sneak in work on test 
stability as well, which I am turning into bugs and patches where 
appropriate. though I have not yet looked too deeply into MozMill tests 
(which is the majority of TB ones).

~Justin Wood (Callek)

More information about the tb-planning mailing list