Skip to content

Add a way to run the reference tests from a PR label - #21918

Merged
calixteman merged 1 commit into
mozilla:masterfrom
calixteman:ref-tests-ci
Sep 9, 2026
Merged

Add a way to run the reference tests from a PR label#21918
calixteman merged 1 commit into
mozilla:masterfrom
calixteman:ref-tests-ci

Conversation

@calixteman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adding the browsertest label to a PR dispatches a run to the private mozilla/pdf.js.pdfs repository, which runs the Firefox reference tests on Linux and Windows, sharded across several machines, and posts the results (with a link to the reftest analyzer hosted on mozilla/pdf.js.refs) as a comment. Every push to master dispatches a reference update in the same way.

The test runner gets a --shard=k/N option to split the manifest across machines and a --summaryFile option to write the final counts as JSON.

Adding the `browsertest` label to a PR dispatches a run to the private
mozilla/pdf.js.pdfs repository, which runs the Firefox reference tests on
Linux and Windows, sharded across several machines, and posts the results
(with a link to the reftest analyzer hosted on mozilla/pdf.js.refs) as a
comment. Every push to master dispatches a reference update in the same way.

The test runner gets a `--shard=k/N` option to split the manifest across
machines and a `--summaryFile` option to write the final counts as JSON.
@calixteman calixteman added test To Review For PRs to review after they've been merged (for example when reviewers are off). labels Sep 9, 2026
@calixteman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I'm merging this PR because I want to test it to make sure that everything is working.
Of course, if something is wrong or missing, then we can follow-up.

@calixteman
calixteman merged commit 61ac0bd into mozilla:master Sep 9, 2026
19 of 20 checks passed
@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Sep 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.31%. Comparing base (583cc67) to head (28bbd8f).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #21918      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.29%   90.31%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         269      269              
  Lines       67541    67535       -6     
==========================================
+ Hits        60988    60996       +8     
+ Misses       6553     6539      -14     
Flag Coverage Δ
fonttest 8.94% <ø> (ø)
integrationtest 69.44% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
unittest 59.49% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unittestcli 57.99% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Comment thread test/test.mjs
numFBFFailures,
numEqFailures,
numEqNoSnapshot,
runtime,

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at the output in #21920 (comment), it may be helpful to also print the runtime there?

For the "old" bots the runtime was usually fairly stable, at least on Linux, so having that available might help catch inadvertent performance regressions?

GH_TOKEN: ${{ github.token }}
PR: ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}
run: |
gh api "repos/${GITHUB_REPOSITORY}/issues/${PR}/labels/browsertest" \

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here, and elsewhere in this PR, would it also work to use /pull/ instead of /issues/ since we're always dealing with PRs for this workflow and that might make the intent here clearer?

@timvandermeij

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Thank you for implementing this!

@timvandermeij timvandermeij removed the To Review For PRs to review after they've been merged (for example when reviewers are off). label Sep 11, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants