Closed Bug 1302809 Opened 8 years ago Closed 8 years ago

Total URI Count Probe Also Counts Non-User initiated URIs

Categories

(Toolkit :: Telemetry, defect, P2)

defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: Silne30, Unassigned)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [measurement:client])

Steps to Reproduce: 1.) Open Firefox Nightly with a new profile 2.) Go to second tab and load about:telemetry and look at scalars Expected result: Scalars should read: Name: browser.engagement.max_concurrent_window_count, Value:1 Name: browser.engagement.max_concurrent_tab_count, Value: 2 Actual Result: Scalars Read: Name: browser.engagement.total_uri_count, Value: 1 Name: browser.engagement.max_concurrent_window_count, Value:1 Name: browser.engagement.unique_domains_count, Value: 1 Name: browser.engagement.max_concurrent_tab_count, Value: 2 Total URI Count should not be counting this URI for the nightly page.
Whiteboard: [measurement:client]
Blocks: 1281813
Priority: -- → P2
Flags: needinfo?(alessio.placitelli)
Yes, it looks like the welcome page gets counted. We could probably blacklist the URL from the following prefs: - "startup.homepage_welcome_url" - "browser.usedOnWindows10.introURL" I'm not sure if it's worth doing that though, is this would only skew our numbers of 1 or 2 (depending on the platform), since it's happening only on new profiles on the first run. Brendan, any opinion on this?
Flags: needinfo?(alessio.placitelli) → needinfo?(bcolloran)
I think we can ignore it if it's just counting the first run page seen by users of a new profile. It's not exactly a user-initiated page visit, but I agree that it seems like a minor case. Thanks for the thorough QA John-- even though we can live with this one, this is exactly the kind of edge case that normally bites us!
Flags: needinfo?(bcolloran)
(In reply to brendan c from comment #2) > I think we can ignore it if it's just counting the first run page seen by > users of a new profile. It's not exactly a user-initiated page visit, but I > agree that it seems like a minor case. > > Thanks for the thorough QA John-- even though we can live with this one, > this is exactly the kind of edge case that normally bites us! What a relief. Saves me from having to rewrite 12 test cases.
Resolving as won't fix.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.