Closed
Bug 1356871
Opened 8 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
Add timing related columns
Categories
(DevTools :: Netmonitor, enhancement, P3)
DevTools
Netmonitor
Tracking
(firefox55 fixed)
RESOLVED
FIXED
Firefox 55
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox55 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: ntim, Assigned: vkatsikaros)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: dev-doc-needed, good-first-bug)
Attachments
(4 files)
Safari has:
- latency
- duration
- start time
Chrome has:
- start time
- end time
- response time
- duration
- latency
Reporter | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Keywords: good-first-bug
Comment 1•8 years ago
|
||
Thanks for reporting this. I think we can have the same as Chrome.
Honza
Priority: -- → P3
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•8 years ago
|
||
Would you like each timing (start time, end time, etc) to be a column on its own or a sorting on the waterfall column?
On Chrome, there is a separate column "Time" that is the "Total Time" ("duration" from the timings mentioned above).
Flags: needinfo?(ntim.bugs)
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Vangelis Katsikaros from comment #2)
> Created attachment 8863426 [details]
> sorting.png
>
> Would you like each timing (start time, end time, etc) to be a column on its
> own or a sorting on the waterfall column?
I personally find chrome's UX confusing, I prefer we have 1 column for each timing.
Flags: needinfo?(ntim.bugs)
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → vkatsikaros
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•8 years ago
|
||
I would like to ask, if the following are the correct definitions for the above columns:
- start time: from start of 1st request until the start of this request
- end time: from start of 1st request until the end of this request
- duration: from start of this request until the end of this request
- latency: from of start this request until the beginning of download of this request
- response time: from finished sending this request until the beginning of download of this request (ie eventTimings.timings.wait)
Flags: needinfo?(ntim.bugs)
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Vangelis Katsikaros from comment #4)
> I would like to ask, if the following are the correct definitions for the
> above columns:
> - start time: from start of 1st request until the start of this request
Yes.
> - end time: from start of 1st request until the end of this request
> - duration: from start of this request until the end of this request
> - latency: from of start this request until the beginning of download of
> this request
> - response time: from finished sending this request until the beginning of
> download of this request (ie eventTimings.timings.wait)
These definitions seem right to me.
But Honza might be a better person to check with.
Flags: needinfo?(ntim.bugs) → needinfo?(odvarko)
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•8 years ago
|
||
Here's how Chrome defines these terms: https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/network-performance/reference#sort-by-activity
Comment 7•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Vangelis Katsikaros from comment #4)
> I would like to ask, if the following are the correct definitions for the
> above columns:
> - start time: from start of 1st request until the start of this request
Yes
> - end time: from start of 1st request until the end of this request
Yes, where 'end' means the response body is fully downloaded.
> - duration: from start of this request until the end of this request
Yes (again including the response body downloading phase)
> - latency: from of start this request until the beginning of download of
> this request
I think that it's from end of sending phase (finished sending of this request)
until the beginning of download of this request.
In another words (Chrome docs): The request that waited the shortest time for a response is at the top.
I think this is: eventTimings.timings.wait
> - response time: from finished sending this request until the beginning of
> download of this request (ie eventTimings.timings.wait)
I think it's time from start of 1st request until the beginning of
download of this request.
In another words (Chrome docs) - the first request that started downloading is at the top.
---
So, I think you mixed Latency & Response time
Honza
Flags: needinfo?(odvarko)
Comment 8•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Tim Nguyen :ntim from comment #3)
> (In reply to Vangelis Katsikaros from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 8863426 [details]
> > sorting.png
> >
> > Would you like each timing (start time, end time, etc) to be a column on its
> > own or a sorting on the waterfall column?
>
> I personally find chrome's UX confusing, I prefer we have 1 column for each
> timing.
Yes, I agree. Individual columns are better.
Honza
Reporter | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Keywords: dev-doc-needed
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•7 years ago
|
||
Demo of the new columns
Comment 11•7 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8865107 [details]
Bug 1356871 - Add timing related columns.
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/136772/#review139962
Excellent!
Couple of comments:
1) The calculation of the response time seems to be wrong. It doesn't include waiting time. I'll attach a screenshot.
2) Can you put all the new context menu actions (related to timing) into a submenu labeled as "Timings"?
Thanks for working on this!
Honza
Attachment #8865107 -
Flags: review?(odvarko)
Comment 12•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jan Honza Odvarko [:Honza] from comment #11)
> 1) The calculation of the response time seems to be wrong. It doesn't
> include waiting time. I'll attach a screenshot.
Sorry, I double checked and it seems to be ok :-)
The waiting time is properly included and the 'receiving' time is properly *not* included
Honza
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8865107 [details]
Bug 1356871 - Add timing related columns.
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/136772/#review142526
Looks great, thanks for the patch!
r+ assuming try is green
Honza
Attachment #8865107 -
Flags: review?(odvarko) → review+
Comment 16•7 years ago
|
||
Btw. the patch needs to be rebased on latest head.
Honza
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•7 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the reviews Honza, I rebased it on the latest head (358609:41958333867b)
However, I see some tests failing on try due to timeouts. I don't have a MacOS (the try's failure) to run the test locally, and I am not sure I can see what is wrong from the output when clicking at a failure.
Comment 19•7 years ago
|
||
Pushed by ntim.bugs@gmail.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/7d07aa43577e
Add timing related columns. r=Honza
Comment 20•7 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
status-firefox55:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 55
Comment 21•7 years ago
|
||
I have reproduced this on Firefox nightly according to (2017-04-16)
Fixing bug is verified on Latest Nightly-- Build ID:(20170602030204), User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0
Tested OS--Windows7 32bit
[bugday-20170531]
Updated•6 years ago
|
Product: Firefox → DevTools
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•