Ehsan wrote: >On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:30 AM Randell Jesup <rjesup.n...@jesup.org> wrote: >> We already *need* to be stable in that case, given MOZ_RELEASE_ASSERT >> (and normal just-because crashes). And as best I can tell, we are stable >> (with regards to user profiles). Once upon a time we weren't (5(?) >> years ago?) > >I do come across MOZ_ASSERTs that trigger while browsing every once in a >while (using a debug build). I almost never file bugs for these, because >the issues are rarely reproducible, I often have little information that >would be helpful as to how exactly the assertion was triggered, and I often >am very actively working on something else and the assertion failure is >just getting in the way of me getting my work done. I sometimes have to >comment out a broken MOZ_ASSERT in my local build to be able to proceed.
Good point, though if we have people actually browsing with these, we'll find these bogus MOZ_ASSERTs - and a bogus MOZ_ASSERT may mean we have a sec bug that we assume "can't happen", since it doesn't fail in mochitests. >While it may be the case that we may need to be more stable for >MOZ_RELEASE_ASSERTs, I very much doubt that every single MOZ_ASSERT in our >codebase is actually a guaranteed to never fail, so promoting them all to >be enabled in something like Nightly is extremely dangerous in terms of the >stability of Nightly for users who are trying to use the browser to get >their normal work done. Again, good point -- though I would absolutely start with "get developers to use this". If we're kicking a MOZ_ASSERT, someone should be either fixing it or removing the assert and dealing with it. So please file against whomever is maintaining that bit of code, and let them sort out why it would fail. >This is, I believe, the way that we advertise >Nightly these days: we advertise it as a mostly stable experimental version >of Firefox and we encourage people to download it to try out the latest and >greatest. Exposing that population to crashes as a result of promoting all >MOZ_ASSERTs to become MOZ_RELEASE_ASSERTs seems like a proposition that >needs to be backed by some data demonstrating that such a build would match >the current stability requirements of Nightly. Sure. >FWIW, I think your original proposal, having a way to opt into assertions >without a slow build locally, is extremely valuable. I could see myself >using that option intentionally even with the pain points I described >above, but for dogfooding rather than while working on a patch and such. Cool, thanks. I have the start of a patch to enable a version of this. -- Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp remove "news" for personal email _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
