Bug 103966 – REGRESSION(r136467): This patch made several tests(e.g. acid3) crash. (Requested by tasak on #webkit).

• Component: New Bugs
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[WebKit Review Bot]

http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/136467 broke the build:
This patch made several tests(e.g. acid3) crash. (Requested by tasak on #webkit).

This is an automatic bug report generated by the sheriff-bot. If this bug
report was created because of a flaky test, please file a bug for the flaky
test (if we don't already have one on file) and dup this bug against that bug
so that we can track how often these flaky tests case pain.

"Only you can prevent forest fires." -- Smokey the Bear

[WebKit Review Bot]

Created attachment 177402 [details]
ROLLOUT of r136467

Any committer can land this patch automatically by marking it commit-queue+.  The commit-queue will build and test the patch before landing to ensure that the rollout will be successful.  This process takes approximately 15 minutes.

If you would like to land the rollout faster, you can use the following command:

  webkit-patch land-attachment ATTACHMENT_ID

where ATTACHMENT_ID is the ID of this attachment.

[Takashi Sakamoto]

These crashes will be fixed by another (valid) patch. We don't need this rollout.

Best regards,
Takashi Sakamoto

[Rafael Weinstein]

Reopening to attach new patch.

[Rafael Weinstein]

Created attachment 177403 [details]
Patch

[Elliott Sprehn]

Comment on attachment 177403 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=177403&action=review

> Source/WebCore/dom/ContainerNode.cpp:315
> +    // ASSERT(document() == newChild->document());

This assert was fine, can you leave it?

[Rafael Weinstein]

Created attachment 177405 [details]
Patch

[Rafael Weinstein]

Created attachment 177409 [details]
Patch

[Rafael Weinstein]

Comment on attachment 177403 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=177403&action=review

>> Source/WebCore/dom/ContainerNode.cpp:315
>> +    // ASSERT(document() == newChild->document());
> 
> This assert was fine, can you leave it?

Good catch. Done.

[Csaba Osztrogonác]

Comment on attachment 177409 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 177409

Committed r136480: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/136480>

[Csaba Osztrogonác]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.

[Jussi Kukkonen (jku)]

Comment on attachment 177409 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=177409&action=review

> Source/WebCore/dom/ContainerNode.cpp:700
> +    // blindly calls paserAppendChild on the docType its passed.

parserAppendChild

[Darin Adler]

Comment on attachment 177409 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=177409&action=review

>> Source/WebCore/dom/ContainerNode.cpp:700
>> +    // FIXME: This assert should be valid, but DOMImplementation::createDocument()
>> +    // blindly calls paserAppendChild on the docType its passed.
> 
> parserAppendChild

The comment here is confusing and seems to be introducing FUD.

This function has a contract with it’s callers, and no "higher purpose". So we must decide whether it’s OK to call parserAppendChild on a DocumentType in this way or not. If it’s OK, then the assertion is *not* correct and should to be rewritten and not left in commented-out. If it’s not OK, then there’s a bug in DOMImplementation::createDocument that needs to be fixed.

The term “blindly" here anthropomorphizes the code but doesn’t make it clear what our design is.

[Rafael Weinstein]

Apologies for the editorial. I'll refrain from that from now on. I'm going to attempt to land a fix which allows the assert to be replaced. I'll cc you on that.