|
|
Created:
8 years, 2 months ago by yongsheng Modified:
8 years, 1 month ago CC:
chromium-reviews, joi+watch-content_chromium.org, darin-cc_chromium.org Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionEnable gpu crash tests in content
Use content and content shell for gpu crash tests
BUG=
TEST=content_browsertests
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=165622
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : small change #
Total comments: 1
Patch Set 3 : refine #
Total comments: 1
Patch Set 4 : no new files #
Total comments: 5
Patch Set 5 : comments removal #
Total comments: 5
Patch Set 6 : remove 'DISABLED_' #Patch Set 7 : Add TODO #
Total comments: 1
Patch Set 8 : remove todo #Patch Set 9 : expose the symbol of kSkipGpuDataLoading to avoid compile errors #
Messages
Total messages: 42 (0 generated)
please help review. thanks.
On 2012/09/27 02:09:57, yongsheng wrote: > please help review. thanks. test two cases on my linux environment and both are ok.
On 2012/09/27 09:31:25, yongsheng wrote: > On 2012/09/27 02:09:57, yongsheng wrote: > > please help review. thanks. > test two cases on my linux environment and both are ok. one more thing: when I test these 2 cases, seems webgl is not enabled by default(which was enabled) so I have to add 'ignore-gpu-blacklist' to make it work. I'm wondering whether there are some changes for this.
On 2012/09/27 09:41:47, yongsheng wrote: > On 2012/09/27 09:31:25, yongsheng wrote: > > On 2012/09/27 02:09:57, yongsheng wrote: > > > please help review. thanks. > > test two cases on my linux environment and both are ok. > one more thing: when I test these 2 cases, seems webgl is not enabled by > default(which was enabled) so I have to add 'ignore-gpu-blacklist' to make it > work. I'm wondering whether there are some changes for this. If you look at chrome/test/base/test_launcher_utils.cc, the kSkipGpuDataLoading is passed in. I think we need to do the same thing for content side tests.
On 2012/09/27 17:33:08, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > On 2012/09/27 09:41:47, yongsheng wrote: > > On 2012/09/27 09:31:25, yongsheng wrote: > > > On 2012/09/27 02:09:57, yongsheng wrote: > > > > please help review. thanks. > > > test two cases on my linux environment and both are ok. > > one more thing: when I test these 2 cases, seems webgl is not enabled by > > default(which was enabled) so I have to add 'ignore-gpu-blacklist' to make it > > work. I'm wondering whether there are some changes for this. > > If you look at chrome/test/base/test_launcher_utils.cc, the kSkipGpuDataLoading > is passed in. I think we need to do the same thing for content side tests. this should be moved from test_launcher_utils.cc to BrowserTestBase::SetUp (that way it'll be in one place and will apply to both browser_tests and content_browsertests)
so is the plan that there will be two copies of the test until gpu_tests is completely converted? https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/9/content/test/content_browser_... File content/test/content_browser_test_utils.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/9/content/test/content_browser_... content/test/content_browser_test_utils.h:40: // navigation finishes by default. If wait_for_navigation is false, you don't need this, you can just do window->Load(url) directly
On 2012/09/27 17:33:08, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > On 2012/09/27 09:41:47, yongsheng wrote: > > On 2012/09/27 09:31:25, yongsheng wrote: > > > On 2012/09/27 02:09:57, yongsheng wrote: > > > > please help review. thanks. > > > test two cases on my linux environment and both are ok. > > one more thing: when I test these 2 cases, seems webgl is not enabled by > > default(which was enabled) so I have to add 'ignore-gpu-blacklist' to make it > > work. I'm wondering whether there are some changes for this. > > If you look at chrome/test/base/test_launcher_utils.cc, the kSkipGpuDataLoading > is passed in. I think we need to do the same thing for content side tests. yes, you're right. i find there are many command line settings when setting up in process browser tests. but no such kind of thing for content browser tests. I'm wondering whether adding this is suitable for all other tests which base on ContentBrowserTest.
On 2012/09/27 18:40:38, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > On 2012/09/27 17:33:08, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > On 2012/09/27 09:41:47, yongsheng wrote: > > > On 2012/09/27 09:31:25, yongsheng wrote: > > > > On 2012/09/27 02:09:57, yongsheng wrote: > > > > > please help review. thanks. > > > > test two cases on my linux environment and both are ok. > > > one more thing: when I test these 2 cases, seems webgl is not enabled by > > > default(which was enabled) so I have to add 'ignore-gpu-blacklist' to make > it > > > work. I'm wondering whether there are some changes for this. > > > > If you look at chrome/test/base/test_launcher_utils.cc, the > kSkipGpuDataLoading > > is passed in. I think we need to do the same thing for content side tests. > > this should be moved from test_launcher_utils.cc to BrowserTestBase::SetUp (that > way it'll be in one place and will apply to both browser_tests and > content_browsertests) ok, that's good > so is the plan that there will be two copies of the test until gpu_tests is completely converted? I think so. what's your opinion, zhenyao?
seems i don't have the permission to use try server with 'git try'.
On 2012/09/28 08:13:24, yongsheng wrote: > seems i don't have the permission to use try server with 'git try'. ok, no problem, I get the password now.
https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/2003/content/public/test/test_l... File content/public/test/test_launcher_utils.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/2003/content/public/test/test_l... content/public/test/test_launcher_utils.h:1: // Copyright (c) 2011 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved. i don't know why you created this file, i mentioned in my email where the place to put common flags is...
On 2012/09/28 02:33:43, yongsheng wrote: > On 2012/09/27 18:40:38, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > On 2012/09/27 17:33:08, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > > On 2012/09/27 09:41:47, yongsheng wrote: > > > > On 2012/09/27 09:31:25, yongsheng wrote: > > > > > On 2012/09/27 02:09:57, yongsheng wrote: > > > > > > please help review. thanks. > > > > > test two cases on my linux environment and both are ok. > > > > one more thing: when I test these 2 cases, seems webgl is not enabled by > > > > default(which was enabled) so I have to add 'ignore-gpu-blacklist' to make > > it > > > > work. I'm wondering whether there are some changes for this. > > > > > > If you look at chrome/test/base/test_launcher_utils.cc, the > > kSkipGpuDataLoading > > > is passed in. I think we need to do the same thing for content side tests. > > > > this should be moved from test_launcher_utils.cc to BrowserTestBase::SetUp > (that > > way it'll be in one place and will apply to both browser_tests and > > content_browsertests) > ok, that's good > > so is the plan that there will be two copies of the test until gpu_tests is > completely converted? > I think so. what's your opinion, zhenyao? yes, that's the plan
On 2012/09/28 15:48:46, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/2003/content/public/test/test_l... > File content/public/test/test_launcher_utils.h (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/2003/content/public/test/test_l... > content/public/test/test_launcher_utils.h:1: // Copyright (c) 2011 The Chromium > Authors. All rights reserved. > i don't know why you created this file, i mentioned in my email where the place > to put common flags is... ok. so since OverrideGLImplementation will also be used in content, what do you think it should be placed?
On 2012/09/29 01:17:02, yongsheng wrote: > On 2012/09/28 15:48:46, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/2003/content/public/test/test_l... > > File content/public/test/test_launcher_utils.h (right): > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/2003/content/public/test/test_l... > > content/public/test/test_launcher_utils.h:1: // Copyright (c) 2011 The > Chromium > > Authors. All rights reserved. > > i don't know why you created this file, i mentioned in my email where the > place > > to put common flags is... > ok. > > so since OverrideGLImplementation will also be used in content, what do you > think it should be placed? this is used in gpu_feature_browsertest, which will be moved to content soon.
> > > i don't know why you created this file, i mentioned in my email where the > > place > > > to put common flags is... > > ok. > > > > so since OverrideGLImplementation will also be used in content, what do you > > think it should be placed? > this is used in gpu_feature_browsertest, which will be moved to content soon. leave this issue in the next patch for gpu_feature_browsertest. please have a check.
I'll be on holiday next week.
https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:20: // SimulateGPUCrash owns the passed 'shell', this should be this comment is confusing, what do you mean by owns it? this function doesn't delete it... https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:55: SimulateGPUCrash(shell.get()); the test used to kill the browser window that had the url loaded. now you're creating a new window that doesn't have that url loaded. why the change?
thanks for review. http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:20: // SimulateGPUCrash owns the passed 'shell', this should be On 2012/10/01 16:10:47, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > this comment is confusing, what do you mean by owns it? this function doesn't > delete it... this's obselete. i'll remove it. http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:55: SimulateGPUCrash(shell.get()); On 2012/10/01 16:10:47, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > the test used to kill the browser window that had the url loaded. now you're > creating a new window that doesn't have that url loaded. why the change? the scenario is that previously browser in chrome have many tabs and here it created a new tab to load the gpu crash url. Here shell doesn't have this. actually one shell is mapped to one tab in browser in chrome. so I make this change.
On 2012/10/11 02:08:46, yongsheng wrote: > thanks for review. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:20: // SimulateGPUCrash owns the > passed 'shell', this should be > On 2012/10/01 16:10:47, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > this comment is confusing, what do you mean by owns it? this function doesn't > > delete it... > this's obselete. i'll remove it. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:55: SimulateGPUCrash(shell.get()); > On 2012/10/01 16:10:47, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > the test used to kill the browser window that had the url loaded. now you're > > creating a new window that doesn't have that url loaded. why the change? > the scenario is that previously browser in chrome have many tabs and here it > created a new tab to load the gpu crash url. > Here shell doesn't have this. actually one shell is mapped to one tab in browser > in chrome. so I make this change. any other comments?
https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:55: SimulateGPUCrash(shell.get()); On 2012/10/11 02:08:47, yongsheng wrote: > On 2012/10/01 16:10:47, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > the test used to kill the browser window that had the url loaded. now you're > > creating a new window that doesn't have that url loaded. why the change? > the scenario is that previously browser in chrome have many tabs and here it > created a new tab to load the gpu crash url. > Here shell doesn't have this. actually one shell is mapped to one tab in browser > in chrome. so I make this change. > I'm not following what you're saying. Yes in browser_tests we use tabs while in content_browsertests we use windows instead. But in the previous test, the url was loaded in the same tab. Why isn't the new test reusing the same window?
On 2012/10/17 15:17:15, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/15001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:55: SimulateGPUCrash(shell.get()); > On 2012/10/11 02:08:47, yongsheng wrote: > > On 2012/10/01 16:10:47, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > > the test used to kill the browser window that had the url loaded. now you're > > > creating a new window that doesn't have that url loaded. why the change? > > the scenario is that previously browser in chrome have many tabs and here it > > created a new tab to load the gpu crash url. > > Here shell doesn't have this. actually one shell is mapped to one tab in > browser > > in chrome. so I make this change. > > > > I'm not following what you're saying. Yes in browser_tests we use tabs while in > content_browsertests we use windows instead. But in the previous test, the url > was loaded in the same tab. Why isn't the new test reusing the same window? not in the same tab. See the disposition "NEW_FOREGROUND_TAB" And I ran the case and found that a new tab was actually created to load the 'kChromeUIGpuCrashURL'. I think zhenyao can confirm this.
Sorry for the delayed response: I am out of office for a few days. Yes, we visit about:gpucrash in a new tab. http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:45: IN_PROC_BROWSER_TEST_F(GPUCrashTest, MANUAL_DISABLED_Kill) { Remove DISABLED_
thanks for review. http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? there is no function in shell to activate one. From my tests, it can work without select another tab/shell. If it's necessary, we need to add functions in shell to support it. http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:45: IN_PROC_BROWSER_TEST_F(GPUCrashTest, MANUAL_DISABLED_Kill) { On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > Remove DISABLED_ done.
LGTM On 2012/10/23 05:51:42, yongsheng wrote: > thanks for review. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: > chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); > On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? > there is no function in shell to activate one. > From my tests, it can work without select another tab/shell. > If it's necessary, we need to add functions in shell to support it. Please do so in a separate CL. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:45: > IN_PROC_BROWSER_TEST_F(GPUCrashTest, MANUAL_DISABLED_Kill) { > On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > Remove DISABLED_ > done.
On 2012/10/23 17:56:12, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > LGTM > > On 2012/10/23 05:51:42, yongsheng wrote: > > thanks for review. > > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): > > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_cr... > > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: > > chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); > > On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > > This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? > > there is no function in shell to activate one. > > From my tests, it can work without select another tab/shell. > > If it's necessary, we need to add functions in shell to support it. > > Please do so in a separate CL. ok, i'll add a TODO in that file. John, do you have any concerns? need your l g t m.
https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); On 2012/10/23 05:51:42, yongsheng wrote: > On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? > there is no function in shell to activate one. > From my tests, it can work without select another tab/shell. > If it's necessary, we need to add functions in shell to support it. what does the SelectPreviousTab call give us? https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:24: // for shells why? what does this give us? i.e. I'm not sure why the test used to do this.
On 2012/10/24 20:13:04, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: > chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); > On 2012/10/23 05:51:42, yongsheng wrote: > > On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > > This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? > > there is no function in shell to activate one. > > From my tests, it can work without select another tab/shell. > > If it's necessary, we need to add functions in shell to support it. > > what does the SelectPreviousTab call give us? > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:24: // for shells > why? what does this give us? i.e. I'm not sure why the test used to do this. Adding apatrick, the original author who wrote this test. Al, can you explain why we go back to previous tab after visit about:gpucrash in a second tab?
On 2012/10/24 20:20:03, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > On 2012/10/24 20:13:04, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: > > chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); > > On 2012/10/23 05:51:42, yongsheng wrote: > > > On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > > > This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? > > > there is no function in shell to activate one. > > > From my tests, it can work without select another tab/shell. > > > If it's necessary, we need to add functions in shell to support it. > > > > what does the SelectPreviousTab call give us? > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:24: // for shells > > why? what does this give us? i.e. I'm not sure why the test used to do this. > > Adding apatrick, the original author who wrote this test. Al, can you explain > why we go back to previous tab after visit about:gpucrash in a second tab? I don't think it's necessary to do that. Presumably the test passes without?
On 2012/10/26 01:06:01, apatrick_chromium wrote: > On 2012/10/24 20:20:03, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > On 2012/10/24 20:13:04, John Abd-El-Malek wrote: > > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (left): > > > > > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/25001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:27: > > > chrome::SelectPreviousTab(browser); > > > On 2012/10/23 05:51:42, yongsheng wrote: > > > > On 2012/10/22 22:54:33, Zhenyao Mo wrote: > > > > > This behavior is lost in the new test. Is there a way to add this back? > > > > there is no function in shell to activate one. > > > > From my tests, it can work without select another tab/shell. > > > > If it's necessary, we need to add functions in shell to support it. > > > > > > what does the SelectPreviousTab call give us? > > > > > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > > File content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc (right): > > > > > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/10984040/diff/38001/content/browser/gpu/gpu_c... > > > content/browser/gpu/gpu_crash_browsertest.cc:24: // for shells > > > why? what does this give us? i.e. I'm not sure why the test used to do this. > > > > Adding apatrick, the original author who wrote this test. Al, can you explain > > why we go back to previous tab after visit about:gpucrash in a second tab? > > I don't think it's necessary to do that. Presumably the test passes without? I tested with content shell and it works without this.
So please remove the comments and let's land this.
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yongsheng.zhu@intel.com/10984040/47001
Presubmit check for 10984040-47001 failed and returned exit status 1. Running presubmit commit checks ... ** Presubmit Messages ** If this change has an associated bug, add BUG=[bug number]. ** Presubmit ERRORS ** Missing LGTM from an OWNER for files in these directories: content content/public/test Presubmit checks took 2.6s to calculate.
On 2012/10/28 01:52:16, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: > Presubmit check for 10984040-47001 failed and returned exit status 1. > > > Running presubmit commit checks ... > > ** Presubmit Messages ** > If this change has an associated bug, add BUG=[bug number]. > > ** Presubmit ERRORS ** > Missing LGTM from an OWNER for files in these directories: > content > content/public/test > > Presubmit checks took 2.6s to calculate. need John's lgtm.
lgtm
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yongsheng.zhu@intel.com/10984040/47001
Sorry for I got bad news for ya. Compile failed with a clobber build on linux_clang. http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=linux_clan... Your code is likely broken or HEAD is junk. Please ensure your code is not broken then alert the build sheriffs. Look at the try server FAQ for more details.
please review the patch. The only change is to expose the symbol of kSkipGpuDataLoading to avoid compile errors. It's because the content is now built as shared_library mode, so the libtest_support_content needs this symbol which is in libcontent.so(dll).
On 2012/10/30 08:45:25, yongsheng wrote: > please review the patch. The only change is to expose the symbol of > kSkipGpuDataLoading to avoid compile errors. It's because the content is now > built as shared_library mode, so the libtest_support_content needs this symbol > which is in libcontent.so(dll). LGTM
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yongsheng.zhu@intel.com/10984040/58002
Retried try job too often for step(s) interactive_ui_tests
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yongsheng.zhu@intel.com/10984040/58002
Change committed as 165622 |