Bug 64358

Summary: TestFailures page thinks all tests passed in http://build.webkit.org/builders/Windows%207%20Release%20(Tests)/builds/14672
Product: WebKit Reporter: Adam Roben (:aroben) <aroben>
Component: Tools / TestsAssignee: Adam Roben (:aroben) <aroben>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: abarth, dbates, ddkilzer, webkit.review.bot
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch none

Adam Roben (:aroben)
Reported 2011-07-12 07:13:15 PDT
TestFailures page thinks all tests passed in http://build.webkit.org/builders/Windows%207%20Release%20(Tests)/builds/14672
Attachments
Patch (7.59 KB, patch)
2011-07-12 07:14 PDT, Adam Roben (:aroben) 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Adam Roben (:aroben)
Comment 1 2011-07-12 07:14:18 PDT
Created attachment 100481 [details] Patch
Daniel Bates
Comment 2 2011-07-12 10:08:29 PDT
Comment on attachment 100481 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=100481&action=review > Tools/BuildSlaveSupport/build.webkit.org-config/public_html/TestFailures/Builder.js:156 > + result.failureCount = -1; I take it that you've ensured that the callsites can handle failureCount = -1. Briefly looking through the code this appears to be true.
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 3 2011-07-12 10:51:13 PDT
Comment on attachment 100481 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 100481 Committed r90824: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/90824>
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 4 2011-07-12 10:51:18 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Adam Roben (:aroben)
Comment 5 2011-07-12 11:03:37 PDT
Comment on attachment 100481 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=100481&action=review >> Tools/BuildSlaveSupport/build.webkit.org-config/public_html/TestFailures/Builder.js:156 >> + result.failureCount = -1; > > I take it that you've ensured that the callsites can handle failureCount = -1. Briefly looking through the code this appears to be true. Yes. It was already possible for this function to return -1 in some cases, so callers have been expecting it for a while.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.