Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(222)

Issue 1467933002: Sheriff: Mark inspector/layers/layer-canvas-log.html as Failure (Closed)

Created:
5 years, 1 month ago by haraken
Modified:
5 years, 1 month ago
CC:
chromium-reviews, blink-reviews
Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master
Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master
Project:
chromium
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Sheriff: Mark inspector/layers/layer-canvas-log.html as Failure BUG=559300 TBR=dcheng@chromium.org NOTRY=true Committed: https://crrev.com/3796a7aee693597269cfc8d34172c8cb90292d1e Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#361065}

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+2 lines, -0 lines) Patch
M third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/TestExpectations View 1 chunk +2 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 12 (6 generated)
haraken
tfarina, robertphillips: inspector/layers/layer-canvas-log.html started failing after https://codereview.chromium.org/1463303003. Maybe the rebaseline didn't work well?
5 years, 1 month ago (2015-11-23 02:35:56 UTC) #2
commit-bot: I haz the power
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1467933002/1 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1467933002/1
5 years, 1 month ago (2015-11-23 02:36:34 UTC) #5
commit-bot: I haz the power
Committed patchset #1 (id:1)
5 years, 1 month ago (2015-11-23 02:40:59 UTC) #6
commit-bot: I haz the power
Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/3796a7aee693597269cfc8d34172c8cb90292d1e Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#361065}
5 years, 1 month ago (2015-11-23 02:41:43 UTC) #7
caseq
Why was this marked as failure? I think the recent history makes it pretty obvious ...
5 years, 1 month ago (2015-11-23 18:58:09 UTC) #9
dcheng
5 years, 1 month ago (2015-11-23 19:02:16 UTC) #10
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2015/11/23 at 18:58:09, caseq wrote:
> Why was this marked as failure? I think the recent history makes it pretty
obvious that the expectations changed as a result of a skia roll and the test
just needs to be rebaselined?

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d9328a9fd1539e3113eae1a17bd7...
was the skia roll, which marked this test as needing a rebaseline. I thought it
had gotten rebaselined in https://codereview.chromium.org/1461003008, but it
seems to have been skipped somehow.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698