WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED INVALID
62662
inspector/cookie-parser.html is a flaky crash
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
Summary
inspector/cookie-parser.html is a flaky crash
WebKit Review Bot
Reported
2011-06-14 13:47:15 PDT
[Chromium] inspector/cookie-parser.html is a flaky crash Requested by dglazkov on #webkit.
Attachments
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Dimitri Glazkov (Google)
Comment 1
2011-06-14 13:47:46 PDT
http://test-results.appspot.com/dashboards/flakiness_dashboard.html#group=%40ToT%20-%20chromium.org&tests=inspector%2Fcookie-parser.html
Adam Barth
Comment 2
2011-06-14 14:45:06 PDT
Dare I ask why the inspector has a cookie parser?
Pavel Feldman
Comment 3
2011-06-14 22:49:00 PDT
(In reply to
comment #2
)
> Dare I ask why the inspector has a cookie parser?
Pavel Feldman
Comment 4
2011-06-14 23:00:10 PDT
> (In reply to
comment #2
) > > Dare I ask why the inspector has a cookie parser?
Feature: Show Cookies and Set-Cookie per request Cookie parsing is a part of the browser / network stack, i.e. platform-specific. None of the platforms expose APIs for parsing the cookies (Set-Cookie in particular). It often is encapsulated in the network stack. So the options are a) - expose parsing APIs on platforms (not always possible) - extend WebKit API to include parsed structures (no super good reason for that) - extend Web Inspector protocol to accompany raw headers with parsed structures (also not such a good reason to increase API surface) b) - check whether cookie parsing is conservative enough and do a 100 line snippet with good enough quality that would do that for us (b) it is.
Adam Barth
Comment 5
2011-06-14 23:28:02 PDT
Hopefully we use this parsing algorithm:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-5.2
:)
Pavel Feldman
Comment 6
2011-06-14 23:37:39 PDT
(In reply to
comment #5
)
> Hopefully we use this parsing algorithm: >
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-5.2
> :)
I think caseq@ ported it from Chromium with its deviations from the RFCs accepted by Mozilla and IE.
Adam Barth
Comment 7
2011-06-14 23:49:09 PDT
> I think caseq@ ported it from Chromium with its deviations from the RFCs accepted by Mozilla and IE.
There shouldn't be any deviations from RFC 6265. (That's the whole point of that spec.) We're cleaning up any deviations that we discover to match that spec precisely. If you know of any deviations, please let me know.
Pavel Feldman
Comment 8
2011-06-14 23:55:22 PDT
> There shouldn't be any deviations from RFC 6265. (That's the whole point of that spec.) We're cleaning up any deviations that we discover to match that spec precisely. If you know of any deviations, please let me know.
Oh, I was not familiar with the effort. I implied deviations from the old 2109/2965. Things like
http://codesearch.google.com/#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/net/base/cookie_monster.cc&exact_package=chromium&q=offer%5Csan%5Csoption%5Csfor%5Csquoted&l=1829
. We'll probably need to sync our port once the cleanup is complete.
Adam Barth
Comment 9
2011-06-14 23:58:15 PDT
> Oh, I was not familiar with the effort. I implied deviations from the old 2109/2965.
Yes. Those specs are not related to reality.
> Things like
http://codesearch.google.com/#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/net/base/cookie_monster.cc&exact_package=chromium&q=offer%5Csan%5Csoption%5Csfor%5Csquoted&l=1829
.
It's now clear how quoted strings should be handled. I personally changed Firefox to match IE, Chrome, and RFC 6265. Paul has promised to change CFNetwork to match as well.
Adam Barth
Comment 10
2011-06-15 00:05:22 PDT
I've posted
http://codereview.chromium.org/7155016
to remove these out-of-date and confusing comments.
Pavel Feldman
Comment 11
2011-06-15 00:32:27 PDT
(In reply to
comment #10
)
> I've posted
http://codereview.chromium.org/7155016
to remove these out-of-date and confusing comments.
Filed
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62700
on inspector requiring its validation against the new rfc.
Csaba Osztrogonác
Comment 12
2011-07-11 03:31:44 PDT
It isn't Chromium specific bug, because this test asserts on Qt in debug mode with NRWT, but passes with ORWT. error log with
r90729
: ASSERTION FAILED: enabled || !supportsProfiling() ../../../Source/WebCore/bindings/js/JSDOMWindowBase.cpp(126) : virtual bool WebCore::JSDOMWindowBase::supportsRichSourceInfo() const
Balazs Kelemen
Comment 13
2011-10-19 06:50:52 PDT
(In reply to
comment #12
)
> It isn't Chromium specific bug, because this test asserts > on Qt in debug mode with NRWT, but passes with ORWT. > > error log with
r90729
: > > ASSERTION FAILED: enabled || !supportsProfiling() > ../../../Source/WebCore/bindings/js/JSDOMWindowBase.cpp(126) : virtual bool WebCore::JSDOMWindowBase::supportsRichSourceInfo() const
After skip, the same assert failed with /inspector/cookie-resource-match-crash on Qt-Linux-x86_32-Debug:
http://build.webkit.sed.hu/results/x86-32%20Linux%20Qt%20Debug/r97849%20(19079)/inspector/cookie-resource-match-crash-log.txt
Csaba Osztrogonác
Comment 14
2011-10-19 06:54:31 PDT
It is the first inspector test ... maybe skipping it too solve the problem ...
Balazs Kelemen
Comment 15
2011-10-19 07:51:26 PDT
(In reply to
comment #14
)
> It is the first inspector test ... maybe skipping it too solve the problem ...
Let's try it. Skipped in
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/97862
Csaba Osztrogonác
Comment 16
2011-10-25 06:45:31 PDT
One more test skipped by
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/98338
Balazs Kelemen
Comment 17
2011-10-26 09:33:19 PDT
Trying a better approach to handle the bots by using test_expectations. Set the first one as CRASH+PASS:
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/98490
.
Brian Burg
Comment 18
2014-12-12 14:09:04 PST
Closing as invalid, as this bug pertains to the old inspector UI and/or its tests. Please file a new bug (
https://www.webkit.org/new-inspector-bug
) if the bug/feature/issue is still relevant to WebKit trunk.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug