The problem with this test was that it was actually relying on the old
broken behaviour where the initial browser of the new window it opens
would be flipped from remote back to non-remote before loading its
contents and flipping remote again. Because it now starts remote
(and stays there instead of doing all of the extra work), the
test was more likely to fall into the trap that I described in
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.platform/1261842%7Csort:relevance/mozilla.dev.platform/gthFqog3J-M/Ypx-SNhEQgAJ
where the promiseBrowserLoaded was firing for the wrong page
load, which meant that the cookie hadn't had a chance to be
set yet.
I've converted the test to use the properly instrumented
BrowserTestUtils functions which wait for the window to be
properly ready, and it appears to pass on try with multiple
retriggers.
MozReview-Commit-ID: BtQRx7og52A
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 83a9c36533505167198b62ddc189c6fa62cec8cd
The code that checks to see whether or not we should flip the remoteness of a browser
before loading the session state into it wasn't accounting for the fact that oftentimes,
restoreImmediately isn't included, so it's undefined, which coerces to "false-y".
This caused us to very quickly destroy a TabParent, very soon after creating it. In
some cases, the IPC layer seems to not like that, and throws an OnChannelError,
which causes the TabParent ActorDestroy method to be called with an abnormal
shutdown reason, which causes the tab crash observer to fire, which bubbles the
tab crash event.
We should probably make the IPC layer more resilient to this sort of thing, but
we should also probably not flip remoteness when we really don't need to.
Now instead, when restoring a tab, we detect whether or not it's going to
be restored automatically in the near future. If it's not going to be
restored automatically, and the browser is remote, we flip its remoteness -
otherwise we leave it alone.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5AmPHvzDZlX
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 0bfeb2cdb0c5849a65bc9a0855c6209d693e5ff4
The code that checks to see whether or not we should flip the remoteness of a browser
before loading the session state into it wasn't accounting for the fact that oftentimes,
restoreImmediately isn't included, so it's undefined, which coerces to "false-y".
This caused us to very quickly destroy a TabParent, very soon after creating it. In
some cases, the IPC layer seems to not like that, and throws an OnChannelError,
which causes the TabParent ActorDestroy method to be called with an abnormal
shutdown reason, which causes the tab crash observer to fire, which bubbles the
tab crash event.
We should probably make the IPC layer more resilient to this sort of thing, but
we should also probably not flip remoteness when we really don't need to.
Now instead, when restoring a tab, we detect whether or not it's going to
be restored automatically in the near future. If it's not going to be
restored automatically, and the browser is remote, we flip its remoteness -
otherwise we leave it alone.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5AmPHvzDZlX
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 9e152c2f1106eda76702bd3ed4cf48e9703e05c8
The code that checks to see whether or not we should flip the remoteness of a browser
before loading the session state into it wasn't accounting for the fact that oftentimes,
restoreImmediately isn't included, so it's undefined, which coerces to "false-y".
This caused us to very quickly destroy a TabParent, very soon after creating it. In
some cases, the IPC layer seems to not like that, and throws an OnChannelError,
which causes the TabParent ActorDestroy method to be called with an abnormal
shutdown reason, which causes the tab crash observer to fire, which bubbles the
tab crash event.
We should probably make the IPC layer more resilient to this sort of thing, but
we should also probably not flip remoteness when we really don't need to.
Now instead, when restoring a tab, we detect whether or not it's going to
be restored automatically in the near future. If it's not going to be
restored automatically, and the browser is remote, we flip its remoteness -
otherwise we leave it alone.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5AmPHvzDZlX
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 9e152c2f1106eda76702bd3ed4cf48e9703e05c8
The initial browser of new windows starts remote now. When restoring a session,
if we're restoring content into the initial tab and it's going to be loaded
on demand, then we would flip it to non-remote so that it can't background crash.
We'd do this for pinned tabs too, which is silly, since pinned tabs load ASAP.
This patch causes us to skip the remoteness flip if the tab we're restoring
is pinned.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 9eQzfLADzlQ
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 5a38290991540152392dcab8f3ae1b2dfa398506
This removes the unnecessary setting of c-basic-offset from all
python-mode files.
This was automatically generated using
perl -pi -e 's/; *c-basic-offset: *[0-9]+//'
... on the affected files.
The bulk of these files are moz.build files but there a few others as
well.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 2pPf3DEiZqx
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 0a7dcac80b924174a2c429b093791148ea6ac204
We were closing the windows before to improve perceived shutdown
performance, but we end up in a state where we're likely to miss
out on the last ~2 seconds of session activity for most tabs per
window. This is because we were removing the session update
message listeners and resolving the flush Promises once the
domwindowclosed notification fired for the window.
Hiding the window allows us to wait for the messages properly.
What's more, we weren't even collecting the window state after
we had flushed, so we have _always_ been missing (in the worst
case) about 2 seconds of session state per window. This addresses
that.
MozReview-Commit-ID: BEOIHV4EErf
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : a814098c0e3aa2224f5d38327c135aba986b4b80
App tabs load immediately, and so there's no point in causing the remoteness
flipping machinery to kick off by making the pinned tabs non-remote by default.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 48O2mJSHurr
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 975137009468db697b20f1b05569bc7e0ec48534
userTypedClear was used for two cases:
1) to keep track of whether we were in the middle of a loadURI call. This use is replaced by inLoadURI, which is
more sane when using e10s (though it's hard to be precise there because we're sending all web navigation calls to
the content process and this introduces a degree of asynchronousness that we just have to live with...).
2) to keep track of whether we were between a network start and a corresponding network stop, and whether the user
typed since the load properly started. This is now tracked on a small object on the browser binding, which has
appropriately named method so we're not just incrementing some magic number but actually understand what
we're saying, and so the information we get out (did the user type since this load started or not?) makes sense.
Note that we're keeping userTypedClear in session store information in order to remain backwards compatible.
It becomes a simple boolean-stored-as-int (1 or 0) that indicates whether we quit/crashed/stopped while a load
was pending, or not.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5NbmVueocC7
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 55cd9f3513c0a985580957a5157d47853a8822bf
extra : source : 386b9c750bd2ed458112acd29eb72e4e1371af9d
userTypedClear was used for two cases:
1) to keep track of whether we were in the middle of a loadURI call. This use is replaced by inLoadURI, which is
more sane when using e10s (though it's hard to be precise there because we're sending all web navigation calls to
the content process and this introduces a degree of asynchronousness that we just have to live with...).
2) to keep track of whether we were between a network start and a corresponding network stop, and whether the user
typed since the load properly started. This is now tracked on a small object on the browser binding, which has
appropriately named method so we're not just incrementing some magic number but actually understand what
we're saying, and so the information we get out (did the user type since this load started or not?) makes sense.
Note that we're keeping userTypedClear in session store information in order to remain backwards compatible.
It becomes a simple boolean-stored-as-int (1 or 0) that indicates whether we quit/crashed/stopped while a load
was pending, or not.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5NbmVueocC7
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : f87199c77094c24c132e6c88f751a5b5d5aa62f9
This adds tests for issues brought up in bug 231393, bug 264610, bug 302575 and bug 1129564,
all of which fed into the current implementation of userTypedClear/userTypedValue. I intend
to move us away from userTypedClear, but I'm keen not to regress any of these issues, so
I'm adding automated tests to ensure that doesn't happen.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 1up2MIXzkzG
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 4d37f13895b8c7e7aba5331664718582c6b2136c
Bug 1243549 fixed a race condition during SessionFile startup which
could cause calls to SessionFile.write to send messages to the worker
before it was initialized. The fix consisted in waiting until
initialization was complete before proceeding.
As it turns out, there are cases in which we send messages to the
worker without ever attempting to initialize it, so this wait ends up
causing a hang/shutdown.
This patch fixes the issue by making sure that any message sent to the
worker first initializes the worker if it hasn't been initialized
yet. Since initializing the worker requires us reading the session
store files to find out which one is valid, well, we do exactly that.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 1bOgCaF6ahM
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 5f1c6df24457c37c8b253c9e14d6e2b5eba2bfbb
Be warned. Do not attemp to change the .js "test" source code in ./js
They are meant to check
- the outdated 0666 octal constant is still parsed correctly,
- the outdated 0666 octal constant raises syntax error flag
in strict mode, etc.
So leave them alone.
While investigating bug 1243549, we encountered several instances of the following error message during each startup:
*************************
A coding exception was thrown and uncaught in a Task.
Full message: TypeError: this.Paths is null
Full stack: Agent.wipe@resource:///modules/sessionstore/SessionWorker.js:296:7
worker.dispatch@resource:///modules/sessionstore/SessionWorker.js:21:24
anonymous/AbstractWorker.prototype.handleMessage@resource://gre/modules/workers/PromiseWorker.js:122:16
@resource:///modules/sessionstore/SessionWorker.js:30:41
*************************
These messages can be explained as follows:
* If sanitization has failed during shutdown, it attempts again to
sanitize during startup. This happens more often than it used to,
because of 1/ startup bug fixes in bug 1089695; 2/ new shutdown bugs
most likely also added by or around bug 1089695.
* Sanitization during startup doesn't wait until Session Restore has
properly started to sanitize the session. So sanitization of Session
Restore file fails. This has probably always been the case, except
we never noticed.
* For some reason I do not understand, it attempts to sanitize several
times.
* I suspect that this can cause problems during startup, as
sanitization and Session Restore race to use/remove the files of
Session Restore.
This patch makes sure that SessionFile.wipe() waits until
initialization of SessionFile is complete before proceeding.
