imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/html/webappapis/timers/type-long-setinterval.html Description: This test is lightly flaky failing on Mojave wk2 release. History: https://results.webkit.org/?suite=layout-tests&test=imported%2Fw3c%2Fweb-platform-tests%2Fhtml%2Fwebappapis%2Ftimers%2Ftype-long-setinterval.html&limit=50000&platform=mac Diff: --- /Volumes/Data/slave/mojave-release-tests-wk2/build/layout-test-results/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/html/webappapis/timers/type-long-setinterval-expected.txt +++ /Volumes/Data/slave/mojave-release-tests-wk2/build/layout-test-results/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/html/webappapis/timers/type-long-setinterval-actual.txt @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +CONSOLE MESSAGE: line 3463: Error: assert_unreached: Reached unreachable code PASS Type long timeout for setInterval
<rdar://problem/59068308>
Created attachment 389386 [details] Update Test Expectations
Comment on attachment 389386 [details] Update Test Expectations Clearing flags on attachment: 389386 Committed r255514: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/255514>
> interval = setInterval(next, Math.pow(2, 32)); > setTimeout(assert_unreached, 100); I think that this tests a zero delay interval vs. a 100 ms delay timeout. Are these supposed to be on the same timeline?
I guess clamping makes it test something different from what the author intended, but flakiness still seems surprising to me.
(In reply to Alexey Proskuryakov from comment #4) > > interval = setInterval(next, Math.pow(2, 32)); > > setTimeout(assert_unreached, 100); > > I think that this tests a zero delay interval vs. a 100 ms delay timeout. > Are these supposed to be on the same timeline? Yes, setInterval and setTimeout should be on the same timeline.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 172052 ***