Disable remaining test on Mac that is flaking more than 5%.

Disable remaining test on Mac that is flaking more than 5%.

Data from http://chromium-build-logs.appspot.com/flakiness_dashboard?master=chromium.mac.

BUG=386891, 53586
R=viettrungluu@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=284945

[viettrungluu, 2014-07-23 15:16:34]

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
File chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm:845: // If this
test fails, it is usually a sign that the bots have some sort of
Hmmm. This comment is worth reading and investigating, maybe.

[jam, 2014-07-23 15:20:04]

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
File chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm:845: // If this
test fails, it is usually a sign that the bots have some sort of
On 2014/07/23 15:16:34, viettrungluu wrote:
> Hmmm. This comment is worth reading and investigating, maybe.

when disabling flaky tests, we don't have the bandwidth to investigate tests on
authors behalf.. given that it's flaking 5% of the time, the test needs to be
changed to handle this error condition

[viettrungluu, 2014-07-23 15:51:33]

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
File chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm:845: // If this
test fails, it is usually a sign that the bots have some sort of
On 2014/07/23 15:20:04, jam wrote:
> On 2014/07/23 15:16:34, viettrungluu wrote:
> > Hmmm. This comment is worth reading and investigating, maybe.
> 
> when disabling flaky tests, we don't have the bandwidth to investigate tests
on
> authors behalf.. given that it's flaking 5% of the time, the test needs to be
> changed to handle this error condition

Fair enough, but how recent is the flakiness? (Could it be a more recent bot
issue? The bug that you labelled it with dates from 2010.)

Could you at least assign an owner for the bug to investigate?

[jam, 2014-07-23 15:55:43]

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
File chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm:845: // If this
test fails, it is usually a sign that the bots have some sort of
On 2014/07/23 15:51:33, viettrungluu wrote:
> On 2014/07/23 15:20:04, jam wrote:
> > On 2014/07/23 15:16:34, viettrungluu wrote:
> > > Hmmm. This comment is worth reading and investigating, maybe.
> > 
> > when disabling flaky tests, we don't have the bandwidth to investigate tests
> on
> > authors behalf.. given that it's flaking 5% of the time, the test needs to
be
> > changed to handle this error condition
> 
> Fair enough, but how recent is the flakiness? (Could it be a more recent bot
> issue? The bug that you labelled it with dates from 2010.)

That data is continuously updated, so it's recent.
> 
> Could you at least assign an owner for the bug to investigate?

done

[viettrungluu, 2014-07-23 16:11:21]

On 2014/07/23 15:55:43, jam wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
> File chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/415453002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/brow...
> chrome/browser/ui/cocoa/browser_window_controller_unittest.mm:845: // If this
> test fails, it is usually a sign that the bots have some sort of
> On 2014/07/23 15:51:33, viettrungluu wrote:
> > On 2014/07/23 15:20:04, jam wrote:
> > > On 2014/07/23 15:16:34, viettrungluu wrote:
> > > > Hmmm. This comment is worth reading and investigating, maybe.
> > > 
> > > when disabling flaky tests, we don't have the bandwidth to investigate
tests
> > on
> > > authors behalf.. given that it's flaking 5% of the time, the test needs to
> be
> > > changed to handle this error condition
> > 
> > Fair enough, but how recent is the flakiness? (Could it be a more recent bot
> > issue? The bug that you labelled it with dates from 2010.)
> 
> That data is continuously updated, so it's recent.

What I meant is, it's flaky now, but since when has it been flaky (and how
flaky)?

But the data doesn't show that.... :(


> > 
> > Could you at least assign an owner for the bug to investigate?
> 
> done

Good enough for me.

LGTM.