I have raised a bug[1] to block these types of commits in the future. This
is an unnecessary risk that we are taking.
I also think that we need to remove this as acceptable practice from the
MDN page.
David
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1336459
On 3 February 2017 at 15:11, Ry
Ideally we would be doing it in a way that we can audit things quickly in
the case we think a bad actor has compromised someone's machine.
While we can say what we want and how we want the process, we need to work
with what we have until we have a better process. This could be between now
and the
One thing that we have also noticed is that the backout rate on autoland is
lower than inbound.
In the last 7 days backout rate is averaging (merges have been removed):
- Autoland 6%.(24 backouts out of 381 pushes)
- Inbound 12% (30 backouts out of 251 pushes)
I don't have graphs to show t
ecdotal as to why there is a difference.
David
On 7 March 2017 at 12:57, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/7/17 6:23 AM, David Burns wrote:
>
>>- Autoland 6%.(24 backouts out of 381 pushes)
>>- Inbound 12% (30 backouts out of 251 pushes)
>>
>
> Were those full b
I went back and did some checks with autoland to servo and the results are
negligible. So from 01 February 2017 to 10 March 2017 (as of sending this
email). I have removed merge commits from the numbers.
Autoland:
Total Servo Sync Pushes: 152
Total Pushes: 1823
Total Backouts: 144
Percentage of ba
As the manager of the sheriffs, I am in favour of this proposal.
The reasons why are as follow (and to note there are only 3 paid sheriffs
to try cover the world):
* A number of r+ with nits land up in the sheriffs queue for
checkin-needed. This then puts the onus on the sheriffs, not the reviewe
On 22 March 2017 at 13:49, Ben Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:39 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Finding someone to own the feature and investigate intermittents is
> important too, but that doesn't mean the tests have zero value.
>
This just strikes me that we are going to disable until they are al
Hi All,
If you are working on web exposed features could you please take a few
minutes to complete the survey. This will help us prioritize work on Web
Platform Tests which helps us with our web compatibility story.
David
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: 28 April 2017 at 14:19
Do we know if the other vendors would see value in having this spec'ed
properly so that we have true interop here? Reverse engineering seems like
a "fun" project but what stops people from breaking stuff without realising?
David
On 30 August 2017 at 22:55, Michael Smith wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
I don't think anyone would disagree with the reasons for doing this. I,
like James who brought it up earlier, am concerned that we from the emails
appear to think that implementing the wire protocol would be sufficient to
making sure we have the same semantics.
As mentioned by Karl earlier, it was
My only concern about this is how local developer environments are going to
be when it comes to testing. While I am sympathetic to moving to python 3
we need to make sure that all the test harnesses have been moved over and
this is something that needs a bit of coordination. Luckily a lot of the
mo
I am not saying it should but if we have a requirement for python 3, we are
also going to have a requirement for py2 to both be available for local
development.
David
On 11 November 2017 at 14:10, Andrew Halberstadt
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:44 PM David Burns wrote:
>
>
For the next version of geckodriver I am intending that it not ship a Linux
32 bit version of Geckodriver. Currently it accounts of 0.1% of downloads
and we regularly get somewhat cryptic intermittents which are hard to
diagnose.
*What does this mean for most people?* We will be turning off the WD
Answered inline below.
On 21 November 2017 at 19:03, Nicholas Alexander
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:25 AM, David Burns wrote:
>
>> For the next version of geckodriver I am intending that it not ship a
>> Linux
>> 32 bit version of Geckodriver. Cu
On 15 December 2017 at 21:29, smaug wrote:
>
> Not being able to send (DOM) events which mimic user input prevents
> converting
> many event handling tests to wpt.
> Not sure if WebDriver could easily do some of this, or should browsers
> have some testing mode which exposes
> APIs for this kinds
Another data point that we seem to have overlooked is that users want to be
able to side load their extensions for many different reasons. We see this
with apps on phones and with extensions currently. I appreciate that users
have grown to be warning blind but, as others have pointed out, this feel
Well done Sheriffs! Really proud of all the work you did this year!
David
On 30 December 2015 at 14:19, Carsten Book wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sheriffing is not just about Checkins, Uplifts and Backouts - its also a
> lot of teamwork with different Groups and our Community like Developers, IT
> Teams an
You can try getting access to
https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/marionette/capture.js
and then that will give you everything you want or you can just "borrow"
the code from there.
David
On 19 January 2016 at 11:22, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016, at 01:39 AM,
re was also work to see if we can get speed ups by using different
versions of compilers. We are noticing huge gains by upgrading to newer
versions but some of the upgrades require some work before we can deploy
them. When we are looking to do the upgrade we will email the list to warn
you.
David
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done in the last 2
weeks as part of their work to modernise the build infrastructure.
Since the last report[1] we have seen thousands of lines of configure and
m4 code removed from mozilla-central. We have removed over 30 Makefiles
from mozilla
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done in the last 2
weeks as part of their work to modernise the build infrastructure.
Since the last report[1] a large number of improvements have landed in
Mozilla Central.
The build system now lazily installs test files. Before, the build co
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done in the last 2
weeks as part of their work to modernise the build infrastructure.
Since the last report[1] a large number of improvements have landed in
Mozilla Central.
We have landed some more build improvements that have brought down th
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done in the last 2
weeks as part of their work to modernise the build infrastructure.
Since the last report[1] a large number of improvements have landed in
Mozilla Central.
We have been experimenting with making a global cache available to al
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done since the last
report[1].
We have reduced the time it takes to run reftests as well as the amount of
I/O that happens during the tests by disabling some features in Firefox
that are not used during the test. This has saved over 50GB of I/O
Is there a way that we can gather if people are using this for testing web
sites? This might account for those numbers.
For example, there is basic support, and I mean really basic support, in
Selenium to handle Basic auth and we suggest to people that setting up a
proxy in the middle to handle th
Yes!
Part of the build project work that I regularly email this list[1] we have
it on our roadmap to have the same distributed cache that we use in
automation available for engineers who are working on C++ code. We have
completed our rewrite and will be putting the initial work through try over
th
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done since the last
report[1].
The build peers have been working to get faster builds in automation as
well as well as local developers. We are currently testing the distributed
cache rewrite (sccache) to make sure that we have not regressed an
Looks great to me!
David
On 4 August 2016 at 06:20, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Over time we've made a series of exceptions to the level 3 requirements
> for Sheriffs and this proposal addresses that.
>
>
> The current Policy for level 3 is:
>
> Level 3 - Core Product Access
>
> Req
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done since the last
report[1].
The build peers have been working to get faster builds in automation as
well as well as local developers. We have updated the way that Taskcluster
decision and linting jobs use version control[2]. This has driven
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done since the last
report[1].
The build peers have been working to get faster builds in automation as
well as for local developers. We have landed changes to stop generating
XPIDL sources in artifact builds[2], which is a performance and corre
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done in the last few
weeks as part of their work to modernise the build infrastructure.
Since the last report[1] a large number of improvements have landed in
Mozilla Central.
The build peers have managed to get numerous patches landed for the
Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done in the last few
weeks as part of their work to modernise the build infrastructure.
Since the last report[1] a large number of improvements have landed in
Mozilla Central.
The build peers have landed support for a new construct in python c
After the major tree closure[1] last week I wanted to see how it
impacted the tree closure stats (stats below in this email) that I have
been watching. I have also been looking to see how many backouts the
sheriffs are doing and seeing how they correlate. For those interested
the tree closure a
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=863838
On 05/11/2013 14:57, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM, David Burns <mailto:dbu...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
We appear to be doing 1 backout for every 15 pushes on a rough
average[4]. This number I am sure you can all agree
ld be a good metric to see if other efforts are
paying off.
On 11/05/2013 07:09 AM, Ed Morley wrote:
On 05 November 2013 14:44:27, David Burns wrote:
We appear to be doing 1 backout for every 15 pushes on a rough
average[4].
I've been thinking about this some more - and I believe th
I think the crux of this is to reduce the time m-i is closed is to have
better monitoring on things like the memory during testing so we can see
if it is growing during tests or change the tests that we don't care
about that assert or hide the test on TBPL so the sheriffs ignore it.
The best a
Personally I find the branches we have annoying and are papering over
the real problem that our feedback cycles once landed are far too long.
Just for that reason alone I am against the idea.
I think if we can solve the build/test scheduling and being smart about
how we do our testing we can r
On 19/12/2013 23:56, Jason Orendorff wrote:
On 12/19/13 4:55 PM, David Burns wrote:
On 19/12/2013 18:48, Jason Orendorff wrote:
Con:
- more work for sheriffs (mostly merges)
If mostly merges, are you suggesting there will be little traffic on
the branch or the JS team will watch the tree for
What are "mission critical" repos since you just put everything in the
same list?
If we start removing project branches to be put on outsourced VCS we
remove any sheriff support for that project branch since, as been
pointed out many times, we dont have access to the server side commit
hook
On 14/04/2014 22:28, Eric Shepherd wrote:
I think I know the answer to this, but want to confirm: is XPath a
going concern? We want to be sure of its current status before
migrating its documentation to where it ought to be assuming that it
is in fact something people still use.
XPath is stil
Not from my side!
David
On 14/04/2014 22:41, Eric Shepherd wrote:
On 2014-04-14 21:38:24 +, David Burns said:
XPath is still a going concern from where I stand. Web Testing
people, who use Selenium WebDriver, use XPath extensively since they
struggle to get to have testable documents
It doesn't feel like a quick |hg qimport bz://123456; hg qref -m "favourite try syntax>"; hg try| would really put a dent in a mentors
productivity. If someone has already put in the effort to update the bug
with try syntax why not just do 1 more step and push to try?
David
On 20/05/2014 19:33
Hi Everyone, (cross posted to dev-platform)
Below is the stats for Tree Closures for the main trees that the
sheriffs manage. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.
_Mozilla Inbound
_Closures due to test failures on Inbound are slightly higher than normal.
2014-05
Hi Everyone, (cross posted to dev-platform)
Below is the stats for Tree Closures for the main trees that the
sheriffs manage. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions._
_A lot of the backlog numbers were down to there being AWS machines not
picking up jobs fast enough. RelEn
Hi Everyone, (cross posted to dev-platform)
Below is the stats for Tree Closures for the main trees that the
sheriffs manage. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions._
Mozilla-Inbound
_
2014-07
checkin-compilation: 1 day, 1:19:41
checkin-test: 1 day, 2:44:14
in
in the recent past seemed to have peaked in
April and have been declining since. Do you have any idea what we've
been doing right? I am always uncomfortable with good results that I
don't understand!
Thanks a lot for sending these out!
On 2014-08-04, 5:42 PM, David Burns wrote:
H
I know this is tangential but the small changes are the least tested
changes in my experience. The try push requirement for checkin-needed
has had a wonderful impact on the amount of times the tree is closed[1].
The tree is less likely to be closed these days.
David
[1] http://futurama.theaut
Hi Everyone!
Marionette now has it's own mailing list[1] that allows us to be able to
send a message to one place that is open for anyone to send to.
We can use it to discuss changes that are happening in the WebDriver
spec, breaking changes we want to do and for releases. Please join the
li
On 23/10/2014 22:10, Jet Villegas wrote:
Roc wrote up a proposal last year for a web-facing screen capture API:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Roc/ScreenCaptureAPI
Even if not web-facing, we could use the implementation code to cover chrome
use cases like this one:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s
The last bullet for me is the killer feature. I recently hit an issue where
I made some fairly big change to an API and updated all the consumers that
I was aware and even ran a try push for the "happy" set. Unfortunately this
burnt the tree.
I see this situation as a bigger waste of resources (sh
Do we have sufficient tests for this to guarantee webcompat and interop
with other browsers?
David
On 10 August 2018 at 15:49, smaug wrote:
> I'm planning to keep Shadow DOM and Custom Elements turned on on
> beta/release builds.
> Target release is Firefox 63.
> prefs are dom.webcomponents.cus
Are there any web platform tests for this feature?
David
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 20:49, Boris Chiou wrote:
> Summary:
> `max-content` and `min-content` are sizing values for width, min-width,
> max-width, height, min-height, max-height, inline-size, min-inline-size,
> max-inline-size, and flex-ba
Are there web platform tests for this feature?
David
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 13:32, Christoph Kerschbaumer
wrote:
> We just realized we have never sent an intent to implement and ship for
> extending coverage of Referrer Policy to style sheets. Please accept my
> apology for not sending the inten
Thanks for this Philip.
I have started raising bugs and blocking
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1498357.
David
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:42 PM Philip Jägenstedt
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:53 PM Boris Zbars
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 12:27, Andrea Marchesini
wrote:
> web-platform-tests: just a little support. I wrote several mochitests which
> can be converted to WPTs with a bit of effort.
>
There don't appear to be any WPT if I am looking in the right place[1].
Since Google are experimenting it feels
For the last 2 years the Automation and Tools team (#ateam) has not existed
as a single function as parts of the team were split up between Firefox
Engineer Operations and Product Integrity.
As traffic in #ateam has dropped it is time to close this irc channel and
request people go to more specifi
There are a number of wpt that fail only in firefox[1]. Are we planning on
fixing those tests with this work?
David
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1546387
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 01:41, Botond Ballo wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I would like to ship the Visual Viewport API [1] on A
Not yet as we are stabilising tests for gecko view but hopefully soon!
David
On May 10, 2019, 7:22 PM +0100, Botond Ballo , wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:50 AM David Burns wrote:
> > There are a number of wpt that fail only in firefox. Are we planning on
> > fixing those
On Jul 25, 2019, 12:23 PM +0200, Tom Schuster , wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:21 AM Boris Zbarsky wrote:>
> > On 7/22/19 6:22 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> > > This was also discussed at https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3255.
> > > It seems like Chrome does NOT plan on shipping this at the m
Are there any web platform tests for this or will they be added as part of
this work?
David
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 17:38, Mats Palmgren wrote:
> Summary:
> Add support for 'display:block ruby' which creates a block box
> with a ruby box inside it.
>
> Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 03:30, wrote:
>
>
> Web-platform-tests: requires manual tests.
>
Is this something that we could be tested with testdriver.js inside wpt?
David
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.or
I think a lot of the problem is not necessarily a technical issue, meaning
I am not sure that tooling will solve the problem, but it is more of a
social problem.
I think the problem is making sure that items are triaged and placed into
peoples workflow sooner would solve this problem but I also ap
Peter,
The FirefoxDriver drive does, as Clint points out, speak via XPCOM to
the browser to get access. Granted there is a lot of JavaScript that
needs to be executed for calls. We are doing rewriting it to put it into
Gecko[1] because it allows us to implement the Browser Automation W3C
Spec
discuss this further via vidyo/skype/irc let me know. I
am keep to fix any potential shortcomings in Marionette.
David Burns
AutomatedTester
[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webdriver/raw-file/tip/webdriver-spec.html
[2] https://github.com/mozilla/mozbase/tree/master/mozprofile
[3] https://github.com
Marionette is one of the core frameworks for testing FirefoxOS but works
pretty much everywhere since it is part Gecko.
You can see it on TBPL with
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Mozilla-Inbound&jobname=marionette for
example.
David
On 30/01/2013 18:33, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 1/30/201
65 matches
Mail list logo