Bugzilla

Replying to comment 17-18: In terms of prioritization, I'm not sure the `Affects major website` / `top50` assessment is accurate.  I would guess/hope that this is rare in the wild.

SAP is itself a prominent web property, and this bug was reported for a SAP-hosted web application, but importantly there's no indication that this bug affects any substantial portion of SAP applications in general.  (If it did, that would be important to know & would be quite concerning, and a severity-bump would totally be merited.)

This perf issue would still be great to fix, but it probably won't happen right away; the fix won't be trivial and will likely include some substantial risk of breakage (and hence will need careful thought/testing/vetting), given this is a long-standing inefficiency with deeply nested `<table>` elements, which are a pretty-old/crufty part of our codebase.

I'll take the bot's suggestion to reset `Performance Priority Calculator` to `?` (and I'll remove the `top50` keyword).  On the Performance Priority Calculator, I think the appropriate `Websites affected:` value is `Rare`, which lowers the perf priority a bit.  (If we have signals that this is actually a common issue, I'm of course happy to be corrected on this.)

Replying to comment 17 comment 18: In terms of prioritization, I'm not sure the `Affects major website` / `top50` assessment is accurate.  I would guess/hope that this is rare in the wild.

SAP is itself a prominent web property, and this bug was reported for a SAP-hosted web application, but importantly there's no indication that this bug affects any substantial portion of SAP applications in general.  (If it did, that would be important to know & would be quite concerning, and a severity-bump would totally be merited.)

This perf issue would still be great to fix, but it probably won't happen right away; the fix won't be trivial and will likely include some substantial risk of breakage (and hence will need careful thought/testing/vetting), given this is a long-standing inefficiency with deeply nested `<table>` elements, which are a pretty-old/crufty part of our codebase.

I'll take the bot's suggestion to reset `Performance Priority Calculator` to `?` (and I'll remove the `top50` keyword).  On the Performance Priority Calculator, I think the appropriate `Websites affected:` value is `Rare`, which lowers the perf priority a bit.  (If we have signals that this is actually a common issue, I'm of course happy to be corrected on this.)

Replying to comment 17 comment 18: In terms of prioritization, I'm not sure the `Affects major website` / `top50` assessment is accurate.  I would guess/hope that this is rare in the wild.

SAP is itself a prominent web property, and this bug was reported for a SAP-hosted web application, but importantly there's no indication that this bug affects any substantial portion of SAP applications in general.  (If it did, that would be important to know & would be quite concerning, and a severity-bump would totally be merited.)

This perf issue would still be great to fix, but it probably won't happen right away; the fix won't be trivial and will likely include some substantial risk of breakage (and hence will need careful thought/testing/vetting), given this is a long-standing inefficiency with deeply nested `<table>` elements, which are a pretty-old/crufty part of our codebase.

I'll take the bot's suggestion to reset `Performance Priority Calculator` to `?` (and I'll remove the `top50` keyword).  On the Performance Priority Calculator, I think the appropriate `Websites affected:` value is `Rare` (though "Configuration" should be `General`).  This lowers the perf impact assessment a bit, to "low" on my end. (If we have signals that this is actually a common issue, I'm of course happy to be corrected on this.)

Replying to comment 17 comment 18: In terms of prioritization, I'm not sure the `Affects major website` / `top50` assessment is accurate.  I would guess/hope that this is rare in the wild.

SAP is itself a prominent web property, and this bug was reported for a SAP-hosted web application, but importantly there's no indication that this bug affects any substantial portion of SAP applications in general.  (If it did, that would be important to know & would be quite concerning, and a severity-bump would totally be merited.)

This perf issue would still be great to fix, but it probably won't happen right away; the fix won't be trivial and will likely include some substantial risk of breakage (and hence will need careful thought/testing/vetting), given this is a long-standing inefficiency with deeply nested `<table>` elements, which are a pretty-old/crufty part of our codebase.

I'll take the bot's suggestion to reset `Performance Priority Calculator` to `?` (and I'll remove the `top50` keyword).  On the Performance Priority Calculator, I think the appropriate `Websites affected:` value is `Rare` (though "Configuration" should be `General`).  This lowers the perf impact assessment a bit, to "low" when I click through the calculator tool. (If we have signals that this is actually a common issue, I'm of course happy to be corrected on this.)

Replying to comment 17 comment 18: In terms of prioritization, I'm not sure the `Affects major website` / `top50` assessment is accurate.  I would guess/hope that this is rare in the wild.

SAP is itself a prominent web property, and this bug was reported for a SAP-hosted web application, but importantly there's no indication that this bug affects any substantial portion of SAP applications in general.  (If it did, that would be important to know & would be quite concerning, and a severity-bump would totally be merited.)

This perf issue would still be great to fix, but it probably won't happen right away; the fix won't be trivial and will likely include some substantial risk of breakage (and hence will need careful thought/testing/vetting), given this is a long-standing inefficiency with deeply nested `<table>` elements, which are a pretty-old/crufty part of our codebase.

I'll take the bot's suggestion to reset `Performance Priority Calculator` to `?` (and I'll remove the `top50` keyword).  On the Performance Priority Calculator, I think the appropriate `Websites affected:` value is `Rare` (though `Configuration` should be `General`, since this doesn't require any special configuration on the client side).  This lowers the perf impact assessment a bit, to "low" when I click through the calculator tool. (If we have signals that this is actually a common issue, I'm of course happy to be corrected on this.)