+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #443493 +++ *** 495 ERROR FAIL | Unable to restore focus, expect failures and timeouts. | | chrome://mochikit/content/chrome/toolkit/content/tests/chrome/test_bug331215.xul *** 496 ERROR FAIL | Findfield status attribute should have been 'notfound' after entering ltest | | chrome://mochikit/content/chrome/toolkit/content/tests/chrome/test_bug331215.xul *** 500 ERROR FAIL | Unable to restore focus, expect failures and timeouts. | | chrome://mochikit/content/chrome/toolkit/content/tests/chrome/test_bug360437.xul

Mano sending your way since you are the original author of the test. Just failed again today: http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1215472662.1215478327.30044.gz&fulltext=1 Can you take a look?

If Mano can't, I can spend some time this week on it (ideally, not tomorrow though since my plate is pretty full atm)

I'll look at this tomorrow.

Mano any progress? Can we just disable this until we get it stable?

Pushed disabling patch to mozilla-central: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/index.cgi/rev/b1b140485f13

Could you please also check this into 1.9.0 for the moment? The nearly constant SeaMonkey failures are on cvs trunk.

Yes - sorry. Meant to do that and got sidetracked. Checking in toolkit/content/tests/chrome/test_bug331215.xul; new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1

Found this while trying to sort out what rand-o-orange bugs are still valid or are now fixed. So if I read this correctly, this test was disabled seven months ago in July2008. Whats left to do here? - write new test, and enable it? - fix & reenable test? - fix code & then reenable test? - something else?

(In reply to comment #9) > Found this while trying to sort out what rand-o-orange bugs are still valid or > are now fixed. > > So if I read this correctly, this test was disabled seven months ago in > July2008. Whats left to do here? > - write new test, and enable it? > - fix & reenable test? > - fix code & then reenable test? > - something else? Mano/sdwilsh: gentle ping?

(In reply to comment #10) > Mano/sdwilsh: gentle ping? I don't really know this code, but I could probably fix it.

Comment on attachment 369536 [details] [diff] [review] (Bv1) Add |todo(false, ...)| [Checkin: Comment 14 & 15] I am not an appropriate peer for this

Comment on attachment 369536 [details] [diff] [review] (Bv1) Add |todo(false, ...)| [Checkin: Comment 14 & 15] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/994e072144e9

Comment on attachment 369536 [details] [diff] [review] (Bv1) Add |todo(false, ...)| [Checkin: Comment 14 & 15] http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/360a6a54de86

Harness changes, widget changes, slave changes, overall speed improvement, I got zero failures on 10 runs on try. Reenabled in http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/95619df80315