|Summary:||http/tests/security/cross-frame-access-put.html is racy|
|Product:||WebKit||Reporter:||Alexey Proskuryakov <ap>|
|Component:||Tools / Tests||Assignee:||Alexey Proskuryakov <ap>|
|Version:||528+ (Nightly build)|
Description Alexey Proskuryakov 2015-01-04 15:33:58 PST
It failed for me under ASan.
Comment 1 Alexey Proskuryakov 2015-01-04 15:36:14 PST
Created attachment 243942 [details] proposed fix
Comment 2 WebKit Commit Bot 2015-01-04 15:37:20 PST
Attachment 243942 [details] did not pass style-queue: ERROR: LayoutTests/ChangeLog:1: ChangeLog entry has no bug number [changelog/bugnumber]  Total errors found: 1 in 4 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment 3 Alexey Proskuryakov 2015-01-04 15:43:11 PST
Created attachment 243944 [details] with a fixed ChangeLog
Comment 4 Darin Adler 2015-01-04 15:47:21 PST
Comment on attachment 243944 [details] with a fixed ChangeLog View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=243944&action=review > LayoutTests/http/tests/security/cross-frame-access-put.html:30 > + // Run the test in main frame after subframe part finishes. > + setTimeout(test, 0); Does this comment mean that we are relying on the fact that the subframe test runs in a zero-duration timer that has already been scheduled, and that all such timers run in the order they are scheduled? If so, then I think the comment is too brief to be clear on this. > LayoutTests/http/tests/security/resources/cross-frame-iframe-for-put-test.html:248 > + // This complicates synchronization with main frame, which needs to wait for this > + // code to run. I find this comment frustrating. It states that running on a timer “complicates” things, but not how we deal with the complexity. It would be better to state clearly what we do to make the test work, and optionally give a reason why other simpler techniques would not work. It’s not important for us to say this is complicated.