Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Description • 10 years ago

We should probably update the Selenium atoms in testing/marionette/atoms/atoms.js to the ones from the latest Selenium release.

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 1 • 10 years ago

A while back I landed a patch adding a build target for Marionette atoms to Selenium.  Unfortunately I'm unsure if I've picked the right atom targets:

    https://code.google.com/p/selenium/source/detail?r=2f47941a58fb7bec448f6492a3d2b478c2f0a8c4

An initial test I did with the newly generated atoms.js file from `./go marionette:atoms` against the Marionette unit test suite showed no regressions.  However, I'm not familiar with the Gecko .jar packaging system.  If I replace testing/marionette/atoms/atoms.js and run `mach build`, will this trigger the right paths in the dependency graph to rebuild Firefox properly?

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 2 • 10 years ago

Attaching a fresh atoms.js file generated from 948fbeddfd6739b40a7348a8e2dd5e4e58a4d70c in Selenium.

	David Burns :automatedtester
	Comment 3 • 10 years ago

What changes in the atoms are required for us at the moment?

(In reply to Andreas Tolfsen (:ato) from comment #1)
> A while back I landed a patch adding a build target for Marionette atoms to
> Selenium.  Unfortunately I'm unsure if I've picked the right atom targets:
> 
>    
> https://code.google.com/p/selenium/source/
> detail?r=2f47941a58fb7bec448f6492a3d2b478c2f0a8c4
> 
> An initial test I did with the newly generated atoms.js file from `./go
> marionette:atoms` against the Marionette unit test suite showed no
> regressions.  

what is ./go marionette:atoms?


> However, I'm not familiar with the Gecko .jar packaging
> system.  If I replace testing/marionette/atoms/atoms.js and run `mach
> build`, will this trigger the right paths in the dependency graph to rebuild
> Firefox properly?

If you update the atoms in http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/marionette/atoms/atoms.js for the ones that need updating.

If you do |mach build| it will take care of everything for you

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 4 • 10 years ago

(In reply to David Burns :automatedtester from comment #3)
> What changes in the atoms are required for us at the moment?
> 
> (In reply to Andreas Tolfsen (:ato) from comment #1)
> > A while back I landed a patch adding a build target for Marionette atoms to
> > Selenium.  Unfortunately I'm unsure if I've picked the right atom targets:
> >    
> > https://code.google.com/p/selenium/source/detail?r=2f47941a58fb7bec448f6492a3d2b478c2f0a8c4
> 
> what is ./go marionette:atoms?

It's a build target in Selenium for compiling the JavaScript atoms needed by
Marionette.  The file can then be copied from the output directory to the Mozilla
repo.    

> > However, I'm not familiar with the Gecko .jar packaging
> > system.  If I replace testing/marionette/atoms/atoms.js and run `mach
> > build`, will this trigger the right paths in the dependency graph to rebuild
> > Firefox properly?
> 
> If you update the atoms in
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/marionette/atoms/atoms.
> js for the ones that need updating.
> 
> If you do |mach build| it will take care of everything for you

Thanks, but do you know if I've picked the right atoms from Selenium?  Since they
get truncated and have probably changed a bit since they were put in Marionette
it's almost impossible for me to tell if they are the right ones.

Since you say that I should trust mach build for picking up the file for packaging
and the tests are passing, I guess it's safe to assume they are indeed the right
ones and that I can make a patch with the upgraded atoms?

	David Burns :automatedtester
	Comment 5 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Andreas Tolfsen (:ato) from comment #4)

> Thanks, but do you know if I've picked the right atoms from Selenium?  

Since I have never seen that build target I would check that they are pulling the same atoms in as what is in atoms.js

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 6 • 10 years ago

try is closed at the moment, so unable to trigger testrun.  I suggest holding off with the review until we've been able to run all tests with these new atoms in place.

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 7 • 10 years ago

try: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=a22977beac44

	David Burns :automatedtester
	Comment 8 • 10 years ago

Mnw had failed but think its intermittents, have retriggered those tests

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 9 • 10 years ago

Where can I see the test results of the retriggered tests?

	David Burns :automatedtester
	Comment 10 • 10 years ago

click on the tests and then bottom left has the logs for that test.

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 11 • 10 years ago

Attempting another try: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=383de5e68eec

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 12 • 10 years ago

Giving it one more try because Gu has been known to be unstable recently: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=17e324428561

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 13 • 10 years ago

Comment on attachment 8367435 [details] [diff] [review]
0001-Bug-964738-Upgrade-Marionette-atoms-to-Selenium-2.39.patch

Need to investigate Mnw failures, dropping review request.

	Andreas Tolfsen ❲:ato❳ Assignee
	Comment 14 • 8 years ago

We will not upgrade the Selenium atoms but remove them in their entirety as we will implement the W3C specification instead.