On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Should we finally bite the bullet and force a flush in reftests/crashtests? You mean force a flush in the load event handler in the test harness, before the test's load event handler runs? > After thinking about this for a while, I haven't been able to come up with > something specific that we'd risk breaking on the Web without our > reftests/crashtests catching it... How about a bug where we're missing a necessary FlushPendingNotifications, and someone writes a reftest/crashtest load event handler that would trigger the bug if not for the harness flush? That might not be worth worrying about though. I think we should just grind through reftest/crashtests and add an explicit flush to every onload/load event handler. Mind numbing-work but would take at most a week based on my count. Rob -- lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr rdn rdsme,anea lurpr edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf toD selthor stor edna siewaoeodm or v sstvr esBa kbvted,t rdsme,aoreseoouoto o l euetiuruewFa kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr rdm or rnea lurpr .a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr esn _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
