Opened 8 years ago
Last modified 8 years ago
#6039 open defect
FATE's HTML is too big when there are a lot of failures
| Reported by: | Cigaes | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Component: | website |
| Version: | git-master | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | timothygu99@gmail.com | Blocked By: | |
| Blocking: | Reproduced by developer: | yes | |
| Analyzed by developer: | no |
Description
http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20161222122222&slot=x86_64-archlinux-gcc-valgrind-drd
is 1 gigaoctet long. Do not try to open it in a browser!
Suggestion: only include the logs if it is below a certain limit, and give links to individual logs otherwise.
Change History (8)
comment:1 by , 8 years ago
comment:2 by , 8 years ago
Did you try the link I posted and wait it downloads completely? Even w3m chokes on it.
comment:3 by , 8 years ago
Sorry, not sure I understand you: The page works fine here, I did not try with w3m though...
follow-up: 5 comment:4 by , 8 years ago
Can you confirm that the page that "works fine here" is really this one:
http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20161222122222&slot=x86_64-archlinux-gcc-valgrind-drd ?
Can you also confirm that you waited until the page was entirely downloaded and you could scroll to the end of the 913 failed tests?
If so, can you tell me how much memory Firefox uses after that?
And also the size of the HTML file if you try to save it from Firefox?
I find it very strange.
follow-ups: 7 8 comment:5 by , 8 years ago
Replying to Cigaes:
Can you confirm that the page that "works fine here" is really this one:
http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20161222122222&slot=x86_64-archlinux-gcc-valgrind-drd ?
Only if this is the same site as above.
Can you also confirm that you waited until the page was entirely downloaded and you could scroll to the end of the 913 failed tests?
On my (ancient) Firefox nothing useful happens before the whole page is downloaded.
(I don't know if this is different for newer browsers.)
If so, can you tell me how much memory Firefox uses after that?
At least more than 1GB.
And also the size of the HTML file if you try to save it from Firefox?
I didn't try this.
I find it very strange.
I don't understand...
comment:6 by , 8 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|---|
| Reproduced by developer: | set |
| Status: | new → open |
comment:7 by , 8 years ago
Replying to cehoyos:
On my (ancient) Firefox nothing useful happens before the whole page is downloaded.
I am sorry, I find that very hard to believe because incremental rendering was already working when Firefox was Netscape Navigator and AFAIK has never stopped working since. Are you absolutely sure you did not just not notice the page was still loading?
comment:8 by , 8 years ago
Replying to cehoyos:
Can you also confirm that you waited until the page was entirely downloaded and you could scroll to the end of the 913 failed tests?
On my (ancient) Firefox nothing useful happens before the whole page is downloaded.
(I don't know if this is different for newer browsers.)
Sorry, this was wrong:
I can confirm that the site linked in the original report both works fine while loading and after loading on my default system.
So to answer the original question:
Yes, I can confirm that I (originally) waited until the site was entirely downloaded before testing, because of your last comment I also successfully tested the page while downloading.
Works fine here on an antique Firefox...