Monitor for startup failure NS_ERROR_OMNIJAR_CORRUPT/_MISSING (aka "The installation seems to be corrupt/incomplete.")

We expect crashes to come in with this MOZ_CRASH reason after bug 1471720.

Marking as S3 for now until we start seeing crash reports come in.

From crash stats it seems we are seeing some cases of corruption and only 1 case of missing omin.ja for now.

Unfortunately the signature is the same and furthermore points to old bug 981681, which will start to spike now. Can we do something about this based on the crash reason?

Yes, but we need to do it in Socorro's signature generation code. We could add a rule there to pick up this crash reason and change the signature accordingly.

In alternative we can just collapse these two on one (this) bug and close the old one, moving the common signature here for monitoring. Note that this would impact bug 1909697 as it was meant to backlink to these two bugs.

(In reply to Jens Stutte [:jstutte] from comment #4)

In alternative we can just collapse these two on one (this) bug and close the old one, moving the common signature here for monitoring. Note that this would impact bug 1909697 as it was meant to backlink to these two bugs.

I did this now to reduce confusion.

Some first observation:

All instances on beta so far are NS_ERROR_OMNIJAR_CORRUPT cases, the only _MISSING case is on nightly.
What we do not know is if that corruption is a symptom of some malfunction on our side (during update maybe) or a general failure on the machine (like an aborted update or a disk full or ...). The hope would be that the interactive message helps people to notice and take action for the latter case.

The bug is linked to a topcrash signature, which matches the following criteria:

• Top 20 desktop browser crashes on beta (startup)
• Top 5 desktop browser crashes on Windows on beta (startup)

:nika, could you consider increasing the severity of this top-crash bug?

For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.

I think we should wait if we see a down-tendency for the number of affected installs thanks to the call to action. It is early to tell, but it might seem so for beta.

Maybe this looks like bug 1923198 now?

Based on the topcrash criteria, the crash signature linked to this bug is not a topcrash signature anymore.

For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.