|
|
DescriptionDo not overwrite tab_state0 during multi-instance migration
During multi-instance migration, if tab_state0 already exists,
do not overwrite it by renaming tab_state. tab_state0 should not
already exist when multi-instance migration is run, but if it
does and it is overwritten then users may lose tabs.
BUG=649384
Committed: https://crrev.com/98219047ca2fc2a198f7268de4a3a106b09f7bc2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#420542}
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : Record histograms instead of actions #
Messages
Total messages: 32 (17 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by twellington@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
twellington@chromium.org changed reviewers: + tedchoc@chromium.org
ptal
cc wnwen@
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
wnwen@chromium.org changed reviewers: + wnwen@chromium.org
lgtm Thanks for opening the bug and identifying this potential fix. We still don't know what really happened for these users, so definitely more information is needed to fix the root issue.
lgtm
The CQ bit was checked by twellington@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
twellington@chromium.org changed reviewers: + holte@google.com
+holte@ ptal at actions.xml
The CQ bit was unchecked by twellington@chromium.org
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Try jobs failed on following builders: chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)
holte@chromium.org changed reviewers: + holte@chromium.org
This is OK, but why a UserAction instead of a histogram? This seems to be recording the outcome of an action, rather than a new user action?
On 2016/09/22 23:57:01, Steven Holte wrote: > This is OK, but why a UserAction instead of a histogram? This seems to be > recording the outcome of an action, rather than a new user action? I'm trying to determine what percent of users are affected by these failure cases. All users have to go through this migration path, so I don't really need to count the non-failure cases. An action seemed like a simpler way to record this but you are correct in that it is not a user-initiated action. I can change them to histograms if that's more appropriate?
On 2016/09/23 00:00:40, Theresa Wellington wrote: > On 2016/09/22 23:57:01, Steven Holte wrote: > > This is OK, but why a UserAction instead of a histogram? This seems to be > > recording the outcome of an action, rather than a new user action? > > I'm trying to determine what percent of users are affected by these failure > cases. All users have to go through this migration path, so I don't really need > to count the non-failure cases. An action seemed like a simpler way to record > this but you are correct in that it is not a user-initiated action. > > I can change them to histograms if that's more appropriate? Yes, I think a histogram is slightly more appropriate, since this isn't user-initiated.
On 2016/09/23 00:26:41, Steven Holte wrote: > Yes, I think a histogram is slightly more appropriate, since this isn't > user-initiated. Done.
The CQ bit was checked by twellington@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
lgtm
The CQ bit was unchecked by twellington@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by twellington@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from tedchoc@chromium.org, wnwen@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2360183003/#ps10001 (title: "Record histograms instead of actions")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:10001)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Do not overwrite tab_state0 during multi-instance migration During multi-instance migration, if tab_state0 already exists, do not overwrite it by renaming tab_state. tab_state0 should not already exist when multi-instance migration is run, but if it does and it is overwritten then users may lose tabs. BUG=649384 ========== to ========== Do not overwrite tab_state0 during multi-instance migration During multi-instance migration, if tab_state0 already exists, do not overwrite it by renaming tab_state. tab_state0 should not already exist when multi-instance migration is run, but if it does and it is overwritten then users may lose tabs. BUG=649384 Committed: https://crrev.com/98219047ca2fc2a198f7268de4a3a106b09f7bc2 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#420542} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/98219047ca2fc2a198f7268de4a3a106b09f7bc2 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#420542} |