Bug 207271 – REGRESSION (r252014?): [ Mac wk2 ] http/tests/resourceLoadStatistics/log-cross-site-load-with-link-decoration.html is a flaky failure

• Component: Layout and Rendering
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Jason Lawrence]

http/tests/resourceLoadStatistics/log-cross-site-load-with-link-decoration.html

Description:
This test is flaky failing on Mac wk2 with a possible regression on r252014.

History:
https://results.webkit.org/?platform=ios&platform=mac&limit=50000&suite=layout-tests&test=http%2Ftests%2FresourceLoadStatistics%2Flog-cross-site-load-with-link-decoration.html

Diff:
--- /Volumes/Data/slave/catalina-debug-tests-wk2/build/layout-test-results/http/tests/resourceLoadStatistics/log-cross-site-load-with-link-decoration-expected.txt
+++ /Volumes/Data/slave/catalina-debug-tests-wk2/build/layout-test-results/http/tests/resourceLoadStatistics/log-cross-site-load-with-link-decoration-actual.txt
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
         127.0.0.1
     topFrameLinkDecorationsFrom:
         127.0.0.1
-    gotLinkDecorationFromPrevalentResource: Yes
+    gotLinkDecorationFromPrevalentResource: No
     isPrevalentResource: No
     isVeryPrevalentResource: No
     dataRecordsRemoved: 0

[Jason Lawrence]

Created attachment 389817 [details]
Update Test Expectations

[Radar WebKit Bug Importer]

<rdar://problem/59190346>

[Truitt Savell]

Comment on attachment 389817 [details]
Update Test Expectations

Clearing flags on attachment: 389817

Committed r255820: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/255820>

[Kate Cheney]

Created attachment 390000 [details]
Patch

[John Wilander]

Comment on attachment 390000 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=390000&action=review

> Source/WebKit/NetworkProcess/Classifier/ResourceLoadStatisticsStore.cpp:238
> +    if (parameters().isRunningTest && !m_parameters.shouldNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned)

This will make us rely on all relevant tests that set isRunningTest to also set shouldNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned. Do they today? An easy way to check could be to grep for both and diff the list. For cases where only one is set, we'd have to audit if that's correct. (Ideally, test results on the bots should give us the answer but …)

[Kate Cheney]

(In reply to John Wilander from comment #5)
> Comment on attachment 390000 [details]
> Patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=390000&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebKit/NetworkProcess/Classifier/ResourceLoadStatisticsStore.cpp:238
> > +    if (parameters().isRunningTest && !m_parameters.shouldNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned)
> 
> This will make us rely on all relevant tests that set isRunningTest to also
> set shouldNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned. Do they today? An easy way
> to check could be to grep for both and diff the list. For cases where only
> one is set, we'd have to audit if that's correct. (Ideally, test results on
> the bots should give us the answer but …)

Good catch! About to upload a new patch with isRunningTest added to a few stray tests.

[Kate Cheney]

Created attachment 390028 [details]
Patch

[John Wilander]

Comment on attachment 390028 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=390028&action=review

> Source/WebKit/NetworkProcess/Classifier/ResourceLoadStatisticsStore.cpp:238
> +    if (parameters().isRunningTest && !m_parameters.shouldNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned)

There are the two TestRunner functions installStatisticsDidModifyDataRecordsCallback() and installStatisticsDidScanDataRecordsCallback(). Will they still work with this change? I'm thinking the *Modify* version might get neutered. But I'm not sure we're still using both.

> LayoutTests/ChangeLog:10
> +        setEnableFeature(true) at test setup and setEnableFeature(false) when

Excellent.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

Comment on attachment 390028 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=390028&action=review

>> LayoutTests/ChangeLog:10
>> +        setEnableFeature(true) at test setup and setEnableFeature(false) when
> 
> Excellent.

Does this mean that later tests can misbehave if an exception is raised in a prior one, resulting in no setEnableFeature(false) call? Can this be guarded against in Internals?

[Kate Cheney]

(In reply to John Wilander from comment #8)
> Comment on attachment 390028 [details]
> Patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=390028&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebKit/NetworkProcess/Classifier/ResourceLoadStatisticsStore.cpp:238
> > +    if (parameters().isRunningTest && !m_parameters.shouldNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned)
> 
> There are the two TestRunner functions
> installStatisticsDidModifyDataRecordsCallback() and
> installStatisticsDidScanDataRecordsCallback(). Will they still work with
> this change? I'm thinking the *Modify* version might get neutered. But I'm
> not sure we're still using both.
> 

It looks like installStatisticsDidModifyDataRecordsCallback is the callback for when website data is deleted, and installStatisticsDidScanDataRecordsCallback is for when website data is just scanned. So when we expect website data to be deleted, we should use installStatisticsDidModifyDataRecordsCallback, and manually call setStatisticsNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned.

This also means we can delete any calls to setStatisticsNotifyPagesWhenDataRecordsWereScanned when installStatisticsDidScanDataRecordsCallback is called, because the function does it already!


> > LayoutTests/ChangeLog:10
> > +        setEnableFeature(true) at test setup and setEnableFeature(false) when
> 
> Excellent.

[Kate Cheney]

(In reply to Alexey Proskuryakov from comment #9)
> Comment on attachment 390028 [details]
> Patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=390028&action=review
> 
> >> LayoutTests/ChangeLog:10
> >> +        setEnableFeature(true) at test setup and setEnableFeature(false) when
> > 
> > Excellent.
> 
> Does this mean that later tests can misbehave if an exception is raised in a
> prior one, resulting in no setEnableFeature(false) call? Can this be guarded
> against in Internals?

I definitely think some of the logic in setEnableFeature could be moved to TestController, but I think it's best to do it in another patch, because it would involve changing 150+ files and isn't directly related to this flaky test.

[Kate Cheney]

Created attachment 390087 [details]
Patch

[Maciej Stachowiak]

Comment on attachment 390087 [details]
Patch

r=me

[John Wilander]

Thanks for r+:ing, Maciej. I was going through my earlier comments and checking things and then got distracted. FWIW, looks good to me too.

[John Wilander]

Hmm, may be one test case that needs massaging. See the iOS bot.

[Kate Cheney]

(In reply to John Wilander from comment #15)
> Hmm, may be one test case that needs massaging. See the iOS bot.

Checked it out and that one was broken (and fixed) in a separate patch. See https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207382

[WebKit Commit Bot]

The commit-queue encountered the following flaky tests while processing attachment 390087 [details]:

fetch/fetch-worker-crash.html bug 187257 (author: [e-mail])
The commit-queue is continuing to process your patch.

[WebKit Commit Bot]

Comment on attachment 390087 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 390087

Committed r256104: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/256104>

[WebKit Commit Bot]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.