Re: Using rr with test infrastructure

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 01:50:33PM +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Seth Fowler wrote: > > > I guess (but don’t know for sure) that recording RR data for every test > > that gets run might be too expensive. > > > It probably wouldn't be too expensive. The runt

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

Within the small circle of Mozilla contributors it may feel spammy or repetitive, but I wouldn't be surprised for people outside of the Mozilla project to think of b2g and Firefox desktop as both separate userbases and separate impacts. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Mason Chang wrote: > Yeah

PSA: mozilla::Pair is now a little more flexible

I thought I’d let everyone know that bug 1142366 and bug 1142376 have added some handy new features to mozilla::Pair. In particular: - Pair objects are now movable. (It’s now a requirement that the underlying types be movable too. Every existing use satisfied this requirement.) - Pair objects a

Using rr with test infrastructure

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Seth Fowler wrote: > I guess (but don’t know for sure) that recording RR data for every test > that gets run might be too expensive. It probably wouldn't be too expensive. The runtime overhead is low; the main cost is trace storage, but we can delete traces tha

Re: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

On Mar 12, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 3/12/15 6:37 PM, Seth Fowler wrote: >> They made main resources that use multipart/x-mixed-replace trigger >> downloads instead of being displayed. > > So what gets downloaded is the entire mixed stream, right? You know, that’s what the

Re: What are your pain points when running unittests?

To build off this idea, I'd like a "run-until-failure" mode (with an upper limit, of course) on try itself. I don't want to spend N+ hours spinning my CPU locally to repro an intermittent. I also don't want to wait until a build is done to press the retrigger button 40 times. My blue-sky wish woul

Re: What are your pain points when running unittests?

I wonder if it is possible to trigger particular single unittest on which we observe intermittent failures, instead of the whole test set. I guess it would save time. I sometimes disable all tests I do not need to check before pushing to the try to make it end faster. - Xidorn On Fri, Mar 13, 201

Re: What are your pain points when running unittests?

On 3/12/15 6:51 PM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: What other use cases would you like us to address, which aren't derivatives of the above issues? I ran into a problem just yesterday: I wanted to run mochitest-browser locally, to debug an error that happened very early in the test run startup. So

Re: What are your pain points when running unittests?

On 2015/03/13 7:51, Jonathan Griffin wrote: The A-Team is embarking on a project to improve the developer experience when running unittests locally. Is this about C++ unittests or about mochitests etc.? If it's the latter, most of my pain points would be around debugging B2G failures. Similar

Re: What are your pain points when running unittests?

Every time I break something that doesn't have a mach command (such as various Gaia tests for example) I shiver in fear, as I need to download the log, read it pretty much line by line and try to retrace mozharnesses' steps along the way. Is the runtests tool also going to help with those type

Re: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

On 3/12/15 6:37 PM, Seth Fowler wrote: They made main resources that use multipart/x-mixed-replace trigger downloads instead of being displayed. So what gets downloaded is the entire mixed stream, right? The observation that multipart/x-mixed-replace support introduces a lot of complexity i

Re: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

On 2015-03-12 6:54 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: I've been meaning to rip out the putative support for this from XHR (and all of the complexity that it introduces) for months now. This would be great. Henri beat you by two years. ;-) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=843508 __

Re: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

On 3/12/15 7:04 PM, Seth Fowler wrote: It looks like it doesn’t anymore, because it works fine in Chrome. Iirc, bugzilla sniffs server-side and sends different things to different browsers. Worth testing in Firefox with multipart/x-mixed support disabled. -Boris __

Re: What are your pain points when running unittests?

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > It'd be better if we could more easily get more information about failures as > they happened on infra (replay debugging stuff a la what roc has worked on, > or better logs, or somehow making it possible to remote-debug the infra > machin

Re: What are your pain points when running unittests?

IME the issue is not so much about not running tests identical to the ones on CI, but the OS environment which doesn't match, and then reproducing intermittent failures. If a failure happens once in 100 builds, it is very annoying for the sheriffs (happens multiple times a day) and needs fixin

Re: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

On Mar 12, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> Looks like this patch landed in Chromium on June 13, 2013 and has stuck >> since then, so removing it has not resulted in a disaster for Chrome. With >> so few people using multipart/x-mixed-replace, and since now both IE and >> Chrome do not

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Mason Chang wrote: > Yeah it is, but I don’t really want to do another PR run when lots of > people have already read about Silk on b2g. Feels spammy to me to do > another one just a month after the previous one, but that’s my 2 cents. > I see, makes sense. Rob

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

Yeah it is, but I don’t really want to do another PR run when lots of people have already read about Silk on b2g. Feels spammy to me to do another one just a month after the previous one, but that’s my 2 cents. Mason > On Mar 12, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13,

Re: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

I've been meaning to rip out the putative support for this from XHR (and all of the complexity that it introduces) for months now. This would be great. - Kyle On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Seth Fowler wrote: > Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace main resources in > this iss

Re: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

On 2015-03-12 6:37 PM, Seth Fowler wrote: Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace main resources in this issue: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=249132 Here’s their explanation: This feature is extr

What are your pain points when running unittests?

The A-Team is embarking on a project to improve the developer experience when running unittests locally. This project will address the following frequently-heard complaints: * Locally developers often use mach to run tests, but tests in CI use mozharness, which can result in different behaviors.

Re: RFC: what's the correct behavior for Visual Studio projects and unified builds?

Intellisense and other code navigation things all work now in the generated project file. This is awesome, thanks! Chris Pearce. On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 10:13:55 AM UTC+13, Nathan Froyd wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Chris Pearce wrote: > > > Breaking VisualStudio Intellisens

Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace documents. We should too.

Chrome removed support for multipart/x-mixed-replace main resources in this issue: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=249132 Here’s their explanation: > This feature is extremely rarely used by web sites and is the s

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Mason Chang wrote: > Hi Mike, > > > This sounds like a massive improvement to our rendering pipeline, > definitely worth of some PR effort! Is that being considered? > > We’ve had a PR effort before when Silk landed on b2g. It hit hacker news > and received over 1

Re: RFC: what's the correct behavior for Visual Studio projects and unified builds?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Chris Pearce wrote: > Breaking VisualStudio Intellisense also broke most of the code navigation > things that make VisualStudio awesome. I don't build with VisualStudio, I > build with the command line because I like to build && run, and I like to > pipe the outpu

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > >> 2) If the only common real-world MITM threat is via a compromise > >> adjacent to the client (e.g., wireless), there's no reason to restrict > >> geolocation, because the attacker

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

Sure - you’ll notice that ordering follows the introduction of OMTC on different desktop platforms, and there is only some randomness in that, and you may have seen a recent announcement of OMTC on Linux imminent landing. — - Milan On Mar 12, 2015, at 16:16 , Gervase Markham wrote: > On 11/0

Re: firefox 36.0.1 raise ConstraintError when add duplicate key in IndexDB object store.

Are you sure it's an exception and not an error in an asynchronous DOMRequest? On 12/03/15 14:51, Yonggang Luo wrote: > That's very confusing because I can not catch the ConstraintError > When the elements with same key already exist in Firefox's indexDB. > > And the raised Exception ConstraintEr

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

On 11/03/15 18:12, Mason Chang wrote: > Project Silk (http://www.masonchang.com/blog/2015/1/22/project-silk), > which aligns rendering to vsync, will be landing over the next couple > of weeks (bug 1071275). You should expect smoother animations and > scrolling while browsing the web. It'll land in

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 3/12/15 3:31 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: 2) Attacker opens a background tab and navigates it to http://b.com (I can't think of a JavaScript way to do this, but if there isn't one, making a big that covers the whole page would work well enough) This is presuming user interaction. I agree that a

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> 2) If the only common real-world MITM threat is via a compromise >> adjacent to the client (e.g., wireless), there's no reason to restrict >> geolocation, because the attacker already knows the user's location >> fairly precisely. > > > I do

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > As an aside, the first three are not just fixable, but actually fixed within > the next few months: https://letsencrypt.org/ Indeed, and for performance concerns there's a good read here: https://istlsfastyet.com/ It's no longer an issue, unles

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 3/12/15 1:28 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Another concern with persisting permissions requested from iframes Can we persist them for the pair (origin of iframe, origin of toplevel page) or something? -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform

Helping the DOM Team

Hello dev-platform, I recently joined the DOM team as an embedded QA member. One of the things I've been working on is establishing and documenting QA processes. I have two goals with this effort: 1. To make it clear how volunteers can help 2. To make it clear how developers and QA can help e

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 2015-03-12 12:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 3/12/15 12:19 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: (Note that the fullscreen API cannot be used outside of user generated event handlers.) Oh, good point. That helps a lot, yes. So do you think it makes sense to restrict iframes requesting certain permis

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 3/12/15 12:19 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: (Note that the fullscreen API cannot be used outside of user generated event handlers.) Oh, good point. That helps a lot, yes. -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://l

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

Hi Mike, > This sounds like a massive improvement to our rendering pipeline, definitely > worth of some PR effort! Is that being considered? We’ve had a PR effort before when Silk landed on b2g. It hit hacker news and received over 10K views IIRC on mozilla hacks, so I’m not keen on doing anoth

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 2015-03-12 11:24 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 3/12/15 10:26 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Well, top level navigation cancels the fullscreen mode, right? The attack scenario I'm thinking is: 1) User loads http://a.com 2) Attacker immediately sets location to http://b.com 3) Attacker's hacked-up b

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 3/12/15 10:26 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Well, top level navigation cancels the fullscreen mode, right? The attack scenario I'm thinking is: 1) User loads http://a.com 2) Attacker immediately sets location to http://b.com 3) Attacker's hacked-up b.com goes fullscreen, pretending to still be

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 2015-03-12 8:26 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: Aha, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks. Yes, that does seem like a more realistic attack. A few points come to mind: 1) The page has no way to know whether it has persisted permissions without just trying, right? If so, the user will notice someth

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 2015-03-12 9:45 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 3/12/15 6:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: It does seem like there are some improvements we could make here. E.g. not allow an to request certain permissions. Insofar we haven't already. That doesn't help much; the page can just navigate itself to

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 3/12/15 12:26, Aryeh Gregor wrote: Because unless things have changed a lot in the last three years or so, HTTPS is a pain for a few reasons: 1) It requires time and effort to set up. Network admins have better things to do. Most of them either are volunteers, work part-time, computers isn'

firefox 36.0.1 raise ConstraintError when add duplicate key in IndexDB object store.

That's very confusing because I can not catch the ConstraintError When the elements with same key already exist in Firefox's indexDB. And the raised Exception ConstraintError can not be catched ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.or

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On 3/12/15 6:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: It does seem like there are some improvements we could make here. E.g. not allow an to request certain permissions. Insofar we haven't already. That doesn't help much; the page can just navigate itself to the attack site instead of loading it in a

Re: RFC: what's the correct behavior for Visual Studio projects and unified builds?

On 3/12/15 5:39 AM, Chris Pearce wrote: Breaking VisualStudio Intellisense also broke most of the code navigation things that make VisualStudio awesome. Chris, So just to make sure the actual question in Nathan's mail is answered: 1) You're saying Intellisense _does_ work in a reasonable way

"Firefox 37 for developers" updated (Review welcome!)

Hi! Now that it has reached beta I have updated the developers release notes for it with the information that has transmitted to us (mainly via the dev-doc-needed keyword). https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/37 Feel free to have a look, comment, complain, correct, etc. In parti

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > The mitigation applies in this situation: > > 1) User connects to a MITMed network (e.g. wireless at the airport or > coffeeshop or whatever) which I will henceforth call "the attacker". > 2) No matter what site the user loads, the atta

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Right, and only work if the user loads such a site themselves on that > network. If I load cnn.com and get a popup asking whether Google Hangouts > can turn on my camera, I'd get a bit suspicious... (though I bet a lot of > people would just

Re: RFC: what's the correct behavior for Visual Studio projects and unified builds?

Breaking VisualStudio Intellisense also broke most of the code navigation things that make VisualStudio awesome. I don't build with VisualStudio, I build with the command line because I like to build && run, and I like to pipe the output to grep, file, or set environment variables more easily.

Re: Project Silk on Desktop

Congratulations to all! This sounds like a massive improvement to our rendering pipeline, definitely worth of some PR effort! Is that being considered? Is this expected to have an impact on Talos numbers? I’d expect them to improve, but that probably also depends on the hardware used for the Ta

Re: Intent to not fix: Building with gcc-4.6 for Fx38+

On 2015-03-11 8:34 AM, bo...@mozilla.com wrote: Given that we (and probably Chromium) would be unlikely to drop MSVC 2013 before our next ESR anyway That is not true. The compiler that we use to build ESR has nothing to do with the minimum compiler requirements on mozilla-central. It's of

Re: Off-main-thread compositing on Linux

Tiling is in a usable state (modulo some reftest failures), but I haven't tried to run talos with tiling enabled yet. We'll probably see the benefit of tiling when we enable APZ (which I don't know the state of on Linux). We can also enable OMTA but I haven't tried to run tests with it or dogfood i

Re: Intent to not fix: Building with gcc-4.6 for Fx38+

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 2:38:43 PM UTC, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Have you tested bumping the gcc min version here > > > to see if there are any builders that still use gcc 4.6? I haven't, no. I assume you mean b

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

Is there any place in the UI to improve this via messaging? For example, https://site.com/ => "Would you like to share your camera with site.com?", but http://site.com/ => "Would you like to permanently share your camera with any site claiming to be site.com? *Note: Firefox cannot verify this c