(In reply to Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST from comment #1) > I would suggest the more generic `application` rather than `browser`, Good idea. > and also consider an `application_version`. My gut feeling says we cannot support `application_version` this during this quarter. But will do some research to properly confirm that.
Bug 1587382 Comment 3 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 Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST from comment #1) > I would suggest the more generic `application` rather than `browser`, Good idea. > and also consider an `application_version`. My gut feeling says we cannot support `application_version` during this quarter. But will do some research to properly confirm that.
(In reply to Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST from comment #1) > I would suggest the more generic `application` rather than `browser`, Good idea. > and also consider an `application_version`. My gut feeling says we cannot support `application_version` during this quarter. But will do some research to properly confirm that. Still, if we've reached this subject... It's reasonable to assume that `application` is a data decoupling factor. But I consider `application_version` to **not** be a data decoupling factor. After we, *let's say* update Chrome's version used in our CI, we should still see data points collected under the same signature. That way, we'll be able to be alerted on changes like these & label them as test harness changes. Dave, am I right about this assumption?
(In reply to Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST from comment #1) > I would suggest the more generic `application` rather than `browser`, Good idea. > and also consider an `application_version`. My gut feeling says we cannot support `application_version` during this quarter. But will do some research to properly confirm that. Still, if we've reached this subject... It's reasonable to assume that `application` is a data decoupling factor. But I consider `application_version` to **not** be a data decoupling factor. After we, *let's say* update Chrome's version used in our CI, we should still see data points collected under the same signature. That way, we'll be able to be alerted on changes like these & label them as test harness changes. After all, that's how we've handled updates to mitmproxy, when we've switched from 2.0.2 to 4.0.4. Bebe, hopefully I'm right here. Could you please confirm this, if you have a better memory than mine? Dave, am I right about this assumption?
(In reply to Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST from comment #1) > I would suggest the more generic `application` rather than `browser`, Good idea. > and also consider an `application_version`. My gut feeling says we cannot support `application_version` during this quarter. But will do some research to properly confirm that. Still, if we've reached this subject... It's reasonable to assume that `application` is a data decoupling factor. But I consider `application_version` to **not** be a data decoupling factor. After we, *let's say* update Chrome's version used in our CI, we should still see data points collected under the same signature. That way, we'll be able to be alerted on changes like these & label them as test harness changes. After all, that's how we've handled updates to mitmproxy, when we've switched from 2.0.2 to 4.0.4. Bebe, hopefully I'm right here. Could you please confirm this, if you have a better memory than mine? Dave, am I right about this assumption?