update integrity tests from 136.0b6 -> latest fail on release channel
Categories
(Release Engineering :: General, defect)
Tracking
(firefox156 fixed, firefox157 fixed)
People
(Reporter: intermittent-bug-filer, Assigned: bhearsum)
Details
Attachments
(3 files)
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | Review | |
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
phab-bot
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
bhearsum
:
approval-mozilla-release?
|
Details | Review |
Filed by: rvandermeulen [at] mozilla.com
Parsed log: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer?job_id=588346182&repo=mozilla-release&task=f4cF5AhCRneCC49EBmUE4Q.0
Full log: https://firefox-ci-tc.services.mozilla.com/api/queue/v1/task/f4cF5AhCRneCC49EBmUE4Q/runs/0/artifacts/public/logs/live_backing.log
Comment 1•5 days ago
|
||
This is hitting on the 155.0-build1 release graph.
| Assignee | ||
Updated•5 days ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•5 days ago
|
||
136.0b6 is technically the most correct version, I guess, because it's the first one we shipped, and updates could theoretically be done from that version to an RC. In practice this probably doesn't happen, and the compare-directories.py doesn't support the scenario. Additionally, it's probably better to test an old version on the release channel than on the beta channel, as there is a much greater chance of updates actually happening from 136.0 -> latest.
| Assignee | ||
Updated•5 days ago
|
| Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•5 days ago
|
||
136.0b6 is technically the most correct version, I guess, because it's the first one we shipped, and updates could theoretically be done from that version to an RC. In practice this probably doesn't happen, and the compare-directories.py doesn't support the scenario. Additionally, it's probably better to test an old version on the release channel than on the beta channel, as there is a much greater chance of updates actually happening from 136.0 -> latest.
Updated•5 days ago
|
Comment 6•5 days ago
|
||
firefox-beta Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined/Reason for urgency: none
- Code covered by automated testing?: no
- Fix verified in Nightly?: no
- Needs manual QE testing?: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing: n/a
- Risk associated with taking this patch: low
- Explanation of risk level: Only affects tier2 tests, verified locally
- String changes made/needed?: n/a
- Is Android affected?: no
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•5 days ago
|
||
136.0b6 is technically the most correct version, I guess, because it's the first one we shipped, and updates could theoretically be done from that version to an RC. In practice this probably doesn't happen, and the compare-directories.py doesn't support the scenario. Additionally, it's probably better to test an old version on the release channel than on the beta channel, as there is a much greater chance of updates actually happening from 136.0 -> latest.
Updated•5 days ago
|
Comment 8•5 days ago
|
||
firefox-release Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined/Reason for urgency: fix failing tests
- Code covered by automated testing?: no
- Fix verified in Nightly?: no
- Needs manual QE testing?: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing: n/a
- Risk associated with taking this patch: low
- Explanation of risk level: Only affects tier2 tests, verified locally
- String changes made/needed?: n/a
- Is Android affected?: no
Updated•4 days ago
|
Updated•4 days ago
|
Updated•4 days ago
|
Updated•4 days ago
|
Updated•4 days ago
|
Comment 10•4 days ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
| Comment hidden (Intermittent Failures Robot) |
Description
•