RESOLVED FIXED 182589
REGRESSION(r227983): fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2.html is flaky
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182589
Summary REGRESSION(r227983): fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2.html is flaky
Ryosuke Niwa
Reported 2018-02-07 17:08:33 PST
Ryan Haddad 2018-02-07 16:57:14 PST (In reply to Ryosuke Niwa from comment #20) > Committed r227983: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/227983> This change has caused LayoutTest fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2.html to become a flaky failure on High Sierra Release WK2 and Sierra Release WK2: https://build.webkit.org/results/Apple%20Sierra%20Release%20WK2%20(Tests)/r228225%20(7494)/results.html I am able to reproduce the failure with a build of r227984 with the following: run-webkit-tests fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2.html -fg --iter 100 --exit-after-n-failures 1 I cannot reproduce with a build of r227982.
Attachments
Speculative fix (2.37 KB, patch)
2018-05-10 20:45 PDT, Ryosuke Niwa
wenson_hsieh: review+
Ryan Haddad
Comment 1 2018-02-08 10:49:23 PST
Ryosuke, is this something you intend to fix shortly or do you want to mark the test as failing?
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 2 2018-02-08 12:14:38 PST
(In reply to Ryan Haddad from comment #1) > Ryosuke, is this something you intend to fix shortly or do you want to mark > the test as failing? Sorry, adding a test expectation short terms is a good fix. Will look into it ASAP but I have another bug I need to urgently address first.
Ryan Haddad
Comment 3 2018-02-08 12:49:02 PST
(In reply to Ryosuke Niwa from comment #2) > (In reply to Ryan Haddad from comment #1) > > Ryosuke, is this something you intend to fix shortly or do you want to mark > > the test as failing? > > Sorry, adding a test expectation short terms is a good fix. Will look into > it ASAP but I have another bug I need to urgently address first. Marked test as flaky in https://trac.webkit.org/r228288.
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 4 2018-02-08 13:43:26 PST
Thanks!
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
Comment 5 2018-02-13 16:14:00 PST
Alexey Proskuryakov
Comment 6 2018-02-13 16:54:02 PST
--- /Volumes/Data/slave/sierra-release-tests-wk2/build/layout-test-results/fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2-expected.txt +++ /Volumes/Data/slave/sierra-release-tests-wk2/build/layout-test-results/fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2-actual.txt @@ -1,3 +1,2 @@ Tests for a crash due to adopting a DOM node during DOMFocusOut event. Test passes if it doesn't crash. -
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 7 2018-05-10 20:45:02 PDT
Created attachment 340165 [details] Speculative fix
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 8 2018-05-10 20:46:28 PDT
I can't reproduce this flakiness locally, and we haven't seen the flakiness since April but GTK+ bots are still occasionally seeing it. I think r227983 introducing a flakiness to this test sort of makes sense since it delays the layout update upon focus so I've crafted a speculative fix for it based on my observation.
Wenson Hsieh
Comment 9 2018-05-10 21:26:55 PDT
Comment on attachment 340165 [details] Speculative fix View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=340165&action=review > LayoutTests/fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2.html:39 > setTimeout("doit()", 1); The `1` is an interesting choice here. Does it not work if we schedule this on a 0-delay timer?
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 10 2018-05-10 21:38:47 PDT
Comment on attachment 340165 [details] Speculative fix View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=340165&action=review >> LayoutTests/fast/dom/adopt-node-crash-2.html:39 >> setTimeout("doit()", 1); > > The `1` is an interesting choice here. Does it not work if we schedule this on a 0-delay timer? Indeed... I think it probably would but I couldn't figure out if this test would catch the bug after that change since reverting https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/135914 is kind of hard at this point.
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 11 2018-05-10 22:00:25 PDT
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 12 2018-07-30 23:07:36 PDT
Oops, the test is still failing because I forgot to update the expected result & remove the flaky expectation.
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 13 2018-08-01 16:26:04 PDT
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 14 2018-08-03 15:09:34 PDT
*** Bug 132183 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 15 2018-08-03 15:09:52 PDT
The test appears to be passing consistently now.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.