Closed Bug 541396 Opened 15 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Intermittent failure in test_fallback.html | Fallback page displayed for top level document

Categories

(Core :: Networking: Cache, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
Networking: Cache
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
mozilla2.0b9
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
status1.9.2 --- .14-fixed
status1.9.1 --- .17-fixed

People

(Reporter: philor, Assigned: mayhemer)

References

(
URL
)

Details

(Keywords: intermittent-failure, Whiteboard: [See comment 24] [qa-examined-191] [qa-examined-192])

Attachments

(1 file)

v1 [Check in comment 31 & 32]
(deleted), patch
jst
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1264159349.1264162689.26457.gz Linux mozilla-central debug test mochitests-2/5 on 2010/01/22 03:22:29 s: moz2-linux-slave15 2645 ERROR TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | /tests/dom/tests/mochitest/ajax/offline/test_fallback.html | Fallback page displayed for top level document
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1265091790.1265097285.15366.gz Linux comm-central-trunk debug test mochitests on 2010/02/01 22:23:10
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey2.0/1265423318.1265426959.30838.gz OS X 10.5 comm-1.9.1 test mochitests on 2010/02/05 18:28:38
Blocks: 438871
status1.9.1: --- → ?
status1.9.2: --- → ?
Whiteboard: [orange]
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1265923199.1265927798.32433.gz Linux mozilla-central debug test mochitests-2/5 on 2010/02/11 13:19:59 s: moz2-linux-slave11
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1265927832.1265932173.17208.gz Linux mozilla-central debug test mochitests-2/5 on 2010/02/11 14:37:12 s: moz2-linux-slave09
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1270748105.1270752093.12665.gz Linux comm-central-trunk debug test mochitests-2/5 on 2010/04/08 10:35:05 s: cn-sea-qm-centos5-01
status2.0: --- → ?
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1270937358.1270941486.13663.gz WINNT 5.2 comm-central-trunk debug test mochitests-2/5 on 2010/04/10 15:09:18
(Noticed while investigating bug 615923.) Check code is: { 71 gCompleteTimeout = window.setTimeout(function() { 72 OfflineTest.ok(false, "Fallback page displayed for top level document"); 73 finalize(); 74 }, 3000); } I assume this orange happens when a tinderbox is slower than usual. Ideas (fwiw): *Not rely on a timeout. (== Could it be an observer or the like?) *Add a check that the test did fail. If it didn't, just set the timeout again. (== Use a longer timeout.)
Blocks: 443017
URL: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-centra...
Component: DOM → Networking: Cache
OS: Linux → All
QA Contact: general → networking.cache
Hardware: x86 → All
Whiteboard: [orange] → [See comment 24] [orange]
Idea 3: *Remove the setTimeout from the test at all and let mochikit detect the test timeout. (== prolonging the timeout with use of a general solution)
Attached patch v1 [Check in comment 31 & 32] (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Possible patch.
Assignee: nobody → honzab.moz
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #495989 - Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz)
Comment on attachment 495989 [details] [diff] [review] v1 [Check in comment 31 & 32] (In reply to comment #25) > Idea 3: > *Remove the setTimeout from the test at all and let mochikit detect the test > timeout. > (== prolonging the timeout with use of a general solution) From the quick look I had at the test in comment 24, I assumed this check was an actual part of the test (and finalize() was just the needed complement), hence removing it would be wrong. But, if you, as test author, just wanted to shorten the timeout delay (and added a fake message just to know about it), then yes relying on the harness should be "better". (This is my feedback, but I'm no reviewer.)
Attachment #495989 - Flags: review?(sgautherie.bz) → review?(dcamp)
Comment on attachment 495989 [details] [diff] [review] v1 [Check in comment 31 & 32] Let's forward r? to jst since Dave Camp is no longer working for mozilla.
Attachment #495989 - Flags: review?(dcamp) → review?(jst)
Attachment #495989 - Flags: review?(jst) → review+
Attachment #495989 - Flags: approval2.0?
Comment on attachment 495989 [details] [diff] [review] v1 [Check in comment 31 & 32] Approval is not needed for tests.
Attachment #495989 - Flags: approval2.0?
Comment on attachment 495989 [details] [diff] [review] v1 [Check in comment 31 & 32] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ef1ff8570ee9
Attachment #495989 - Attachment description: v1 → v1 [Check in comment 31]
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
status2.0: ? → ---
Flags: in-testsuite+
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b9
Is there really anything for QA to do here to verify this for 1.9.1 or 1.9.2 if the failure has been intermittent?
Whiteboard: [See comment 24] [orange] → [See comment 24] [orange] [qa-examined-191] [qa-examined-192]
Whiteboard: [See comment 24] [orange] [qa-examined-191] [qa-examined-192] → [See comment 24] [qa-examined-191] [qa-examined-192]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: