Bug 82993

Summary: chromium: fast/dom/error-to-string-stack-overflow.html is failing after v8 roll to 3.10.0.2
Product: WebKit Reporter: Dirk Pranke <dpranke>
Component: Tools / TestsAssignee: Nobody <webkit-unassigned>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: abarth, apavlov, danno, haraken, ulan, webkit.review.bot
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Attachments:
Description Flags
Adjust test expectation to include the line number of the exception.
none
Update LayoutTests/platform/chromium/test_expectations.txt to ignore the test
haraken: review+, webkit.review.bot: commit-queue-
Rebased none

Description Dirk Pranke 2012-04-02 18:39:02 PDT
See http://test-results.appspot.com/dashboards/flakiness_dashboard.html#showExpectations=true&tests=fast%2Fdom%2Ferror-to-string-stack-overflow.html%2Csvg%2Fcustom%2Ftext-ctm.svg&builder=Webkit%20Win

It looks like the v8 roll in http://codereview.chromium.org/9950056 caused this, so I'm going to roll it out. 

I apologize for the lack of notification; it looks like this has been failing all day but we didn't have a webkit gardener so no one noticed.

-- Dirk
Comment 1 Ulan Degenbaev 2012-04-03 02:30:52 PDT
The difference between the expected(-) and the actual(+) in Linux 64-bit:

-CONSOLE MESSAGE: Uncaught RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
+CONSOLE MESSAGE: line 14: Uncaught RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
 Regression test for 


We started reporting the line number with V8 3.10.0.2. Should we adjust the test expectations for Linux 64-bit (platform/chromium-linux/)?


Note that the test expectations for Linux 32-bit already have the correct line number:
CONSOLE MESSAGE: line 14: Uncaught RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
Comment 2 Ulan Degenbaev 2012-04-03 03:00:52 PDT
Created attachment 135295 [details]
Adjust test expectation to include the line number of the exception.

This can be landed after V8 3.10.0.3 roll.
Comment 3 Ulan Degenbaev 2012-04-03 03:31:17 PDT
Created attachment 135300 [details]
Update LayoutTests/platform/chromium/test_expectations.txt to ignore the test

Looks like the correct sequence is to land this patch with updated LayoutTests/platform/chromium/test_expectations.txt and then roll V8.

Could someone please review and land this patch for me?
Comment 4 Kentaro Hara 2012-04-03 04:10:47 PDT
Comment on attachment 135300 [details]
Update LayoutTests/platform/chromium/test_expectations.txt to ignore the test

Looks good!
Comment 5 WebKit Review Bot 2012-04-03 05:52:50 PDT
Comment on attachment 135300 [details]
Update LayoutTests/platform/chromium/test_expectations.txt to ignore the test

Rejecting attachment 135300 [details] from commit-queue.

Failed to run "['/mnt/git/webkit-commit-queue/Tools/Scripts/webkit-patch', '--status-host=queues.webkit.org', '-..." exit_code: 2

Last 500 characters of output:
queue/Source/WebKit/chromium/third_party/sfntly/cpp/src --revision 128 --non-interactive --force --accept theirs-conflict --ignore-externals' in '/mnt/git/webkit-commit-queue/Source/WebKit/chromium'
42>At revision 128.

________ running '/usr/bin/python tools/clang/scripts/update.py --mac-only' in '/mnt/git/webkit-commit-queue/Source/WebKit/chromium'

________ running '/usr/bin/python gyp_webkit' in '/mnt/git/webkit-commit-queue/Source/WebKit/chromium'
Updating webkit projects from gyp files...

Full output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/12321126
Comment 6 Kentaro Hara 2012-04-03 05:54:38 PDT
Would you please rebase your patch with the latest WebKit trunk and then re-upload it, just in case?
Comment 7 Ulan Degenbaev 2012-04-03 06:02:54 PDT
Created attachment 135317 [details]
Rebased

Rebased to avoid merge conflict.
Comment 8 WebKit Review Bot 2012-04-03 06:40:16 PDT
Comment on attachment 135317 [details]
Rebased

Clearing flags on attachment: 135317

Committed r113029: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/113029>
Comment 9 WebKit Review Bot 2012-04-03 06:40:22 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.
Comment 10 Dirk Pranke 2012-04-03 11:53:53 PDT
Oh, I'm sorry I rolled this out just for a rebaseline :(. If I had been sharper last night I would've noticed. Glad it's fixed now, and sorry for the inconvenience!
Comment 11 Ulan Degenbaev 2012-04-04 01:02:03 PDT
(In reply to comment #10)
> Oh, I'm sorry I rolled this out just for a rebaseline :(. If I had been sharper last night I would've noticed. Glad it's fixed now, and sorry for the inconvenience!

No problem, we should have updated the expectations before rolling in.