(In reply to Paul [:pmac] McLanahan from comment #14) > We do have some browser detection code that could potentially be repurposed for this, but then we'll have to decide ahead of time what we'd like to collect. I don't think it matters for false data if the UA is collected by the site or by bouncer/stubattribution, but you're right that it matters that we do consistent parsing if we're going to parse. > > I'm adding a NI for Alex Gibson as he knows more about the UA parsing that we currently do on the site. We have built in UA detection to break down Firefox versions, as well as some OS versions, but we don't have a generic UA parser that works across all browsers, which sounds like what's being described here. This is something we could potentially invest in building, but as :pmac the browser does already send this info over, so I don't know if this makes more sense than allowing Bouncer to parse the info.
Bug 1406005 Comment 15 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Paul [:pmac] McLanahan from comment #14) > We do have some browser detection code that could potentially be repurposed for this, but then we'll have to decide ahead of time what we'd like to collect. I don't think it matters for false data if the UA is collected by the site or by bouncer/stubattribution, but you're right that it matters that we do consistent parsing if we're going to parse. > > I'm adding a NI for Alex Gibson as he knows more about the UA parsing that we currently do on the site. We have built in UA detection to break down Firefox versions, as well as some OS versions, but we don't have a generic UA parser that works across all browsers, which sounds like what's being described here. This is something we could potentially invest in building, but as :pmac says the browser does already send this info over, so I don't know if this makes more sense than allowing Bouncer to parse the info.