LayoutTest http/tests/plugins/visible_plugins.html failing on Yosemite WK1 Started after r195950. <https://build.webkit.org/results/Apple%20Yosemite%20Release%20WK1%20(Tests)/r195950%20(11677)/results.html> <http://webkit-test-results.webkit.org/dashboards/flakiness_dashboard.html#showAllRuns=true&tests=http%2Ftests%2Fplugins%2Fvisible_plugins.html> --- /Volumes/Data/slave/yosemite-release-tests-wk1/build/layout-test-results/http/tests/plugins/visible_plugins-expected.txt +++ /Volumes/Data/slave/yosemite-release-tests-wk1/build/layout-test-results/http/tests/plugins/visible_plugins-actual.txt @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ Check we only display the valid set of "public" plugins. -None +Java Applet Plug-in
<rdar://problem/24450314>
Skipped this test on Yosemite to get the bots back to green during investigation <https://trac.webkit.org/r195996>
This result is inconsistent on our various test machines because they seem to have a different set of plugins installed: * Some have Java installed * Some have Quicktime installed * Some have neither We need to decide on a consistent set of plugins and deploy them on all the test machines.
I don;t think that this would be the correct response. Tests need to pass on engineers' machines too, so they should pass regardless of installed plug-ins.
Created attachment 270588 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 270588 [details] Patch Normally it’s better to do something to make it clear that the test ran and we didn’t just hit a JavaScript exception. Could just use "PASS" or "FAIL: Unexpected ..." and then we’d notice that the PASS was missing if the test didn't even run.
Comment on attachment 270588 [details] Patch I agree with Darin's comment, please do address it. That seems straightforward enough to not require additional review, so r=me.
Committed r196084: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/196084>
(In reply to comment #6) > Comment on attachment 270588 [details] > Patch > > Normally it’s better to do something to make it clear that the test ran and > we didn’t just hit a JavaScript exception. Could just use "PASS" or "FAIL: > Unexpected ..." and then we’d notice that the PASS was missing if the test > didn't even run. Understood -- I'll revise to address that.