1367108 - Do a QA pass on extension process probe

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Toolkit :: Telemetry, enhancement, P1)

Description

[Georg Fritzsche [:gfritzsche]]

This won't need involved testing, but we should do some basic test runs and checks on the payload/processes/extension vs. payload/processes/content data.

Comment 1

[Georg Fritzsche [:gfritzsche]]

This will probably involve:
- toggling on webextensions oop
- taking the browser for a test run (with an active webextension)
- checking the different payload sections for data to come in

Kris Maglione should be able to answer WebExt OOP questions.
This page has testing notes:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Testing-out-of-process

Comment 2

[Alessio Placitelli [:Dexter]]

I took this for a test drive, and I see a filled |processes.extension| section in my ping. Here's a section of the reported data:


> "processes": {
>   "parent": {
>     "scalars": {
>       "browser.engagement.max_concurrent_tab_count": 1,
>       "browser.engagement.max_concurrent_window_count": 1,
>       "browser.engagement.unfiltered_uri_count": 2
>     },
>     "keyedScalars": {
>       "security.pkcs11_modules_loaded": {
>         "libnssckbi.so": true,
>         "NSS Internal PKCS #11 Module": true
>       }
>     },
>     "events": []
>   },
>   "content": {
>     "histograms": {
>       // ... stuff ...
>       "FXA_CONFIGURED": {
>         "range": [
>           1,
>           2
>         ],
>         "bucket_count": 3,
>         "histogram_type": 3,
>         "values": {
>           "0": 1,
>           "1": 0
>         },
>         "sum": 0
>       }
>     },
>     "events": []
>   },
>   "extension": {
>     "histograms": {
>       // ... stuff ...
>       "FXA_CONFIGURED": {
>         "range": [
>           1,
>           2
>         ],
>         "bucket_count": 3,
>         "histogram_type": 3,
>         "values": {
>           "0": 1,
>           "1": 0
>         },
>         "sum": 0
>       }
>     },
>     "events": []
>   }
> },

Nothing out of the ordinary... except the FXA_CONFIGURED. It looked weird seeing that in the "extension" process. It's defined as main+content process only [1], and it's showing up in the "extensions" process. I tried to pin it on :chutten with bug 1335343, but a more reasonable explanation could be that |CanRecordInProcess| [2] isn't properly filtering out the "extensions" process, which is really a "content" process. So I guess this is really more something we didn't see in bug 1361661.

I think we should fix [2] or consider some other ways to filter out the extension process when doing process-filtering in the Telemetry core. Georg, what's your take on this?

[1] - http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/2bcd258281da848311769281daf735601685de2d/toolkit/components/telemetry/Histograms.json#12130
[2] - http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/2bcd258281da848311769281daf735601685de2d/toolkit/components/telemetry/TelemetryCommon.cpp#71

Comment 3

[Georg Fritzsche [:gfritzsche]]

(In reply to Alessio Placitelli [:Dexter] from comment #2)
> Nothing out of the ordinary... except the FXA_CONFIGURED. It looked weird
> seeing that in the "extension" process. It's defined as main+content process
> only [1], and it's showing up in the "extensions" process. I tried to pin it
> on :chutten with bug 1335343, but a more reasonable explanation could be
> that |CanRecordInProcess| [2] isn't properly filtering out the "extensions"
> process, which is really a "content" process. So I guess this is really more
> something we didn't see in bug 1361661.
> 
> I think we should fix [2] or consider some other ways to filter out the
> extension process when doing process-filtering in the Telemetry core. Georg,
> what's your take on this?

I think currently that is working as intended.
The short version is that bug 1361661 specifically moved the recorded extension process data into "processes/extensions".
I skipped updating the recording flags there to limit scope.

After bug 1335343 and bug 1366294 we should be in a better place to use the Processes.yaml names for the various record_in_processes fields.
Lets file a bug on that and scope out the needs there?

Comment 4

[Alessio Placitelli [:Dexter]]

(In reply to Georg Fritzsche [:gfritzsche] from comment #3)
> After bug 1335343 and bug 1366294 we should be in a better place to use the
> Processes.yaml names for the various record_in_processes fields.
> Lets file a bug on that and scope out the needs there?

I filed bug 1374706. Closing this one as we can see from comment 2 that the "extension" section of the main ping is being populated.