Bug 153752 – LayoutTest http/tests/plugins/visible_plugins.html failing on Yosemite WK1

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: FIXED
• Component: WebKit Misc.

[Ryan Haddad]

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

[Radar WebKit Bug Importer]

<rdar://problem/24450314>

[Ryan Haddad]

Skipped this test on Yosemite to get the bots back to green during investigation <https://trac.webkit.org/r195996>

[Brent Fulgham]

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.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

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.

[Brent Fulgham]

Created attachment 270588 [details]
Patch

[Darin Adler]

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.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

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.

[Brent Fulgham]

Committed r196084: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/196084>

[Brent Fulgham]

(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.