1724645 - Update PerfomanceMark APIs to User Timing L3

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: Performance, enhancement, P3)

Description

[Kagami Rosylight [:saschanaz] (they/them)]

Currently they return nothing.

This change happened in User Timing L3. https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/pull/46

Comment 1

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Performance APIs tend to be tracked in the Performance component.

Comment 2

[Kagami Rosylight [:saschanaz] (they/them)]

The intro says:

Performance work items and bugs requiring action by the Firefox Performance team

Not sure this is true here or there should be DOM::Performance? Or maybe the text should be revised.

Comment 3

[Sean Feng [:sefeng]]

The performance team uses Core::Performance to track all performance-related bugs which include Performance API, I believe this is the right component :)

Comment 4

[Kagami Rosylight [:saschanaz] (they/them)]

Cool, do you happen to know who can modify the component description? I think it would be useful to add "including DOM Performance API", but ignore me if you think otherwise 😉

Comment 5

[Sean Feng [:sefeng]]

I wouldn't be against adding that to the description, however, I am not sure how and who should make the call...

Kim, do you mind read comment 4 and see what we could do here?

(Keeping my NI for the changes of this bug)

Comment 6

[Kim Moir [:kmoir] ET]

I will defer to Patricia on this

If you want to make this change, I believe you need to open a bug in BMO Administration

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=bugzilla.mozilla.org&component=Administration

Comment 7

[Patricia Lawless]

Sure, it makes sense to update the description. I filed this bug to do that: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1727570

Comment 8

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: Bug 1724645 - return PerformanceMark/Measure from performance.mark/measure. r=sefeng

Comment 9

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

We can't land the pieces of making PerformanceMark support L3 individually (this bug, bug 1758749, bug 1759203) because tests fail in between that we can't suppress so I'm repurposing this bug to do all of PerformanceMark L3 at once.

Comment 12

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: Bug 1724645 - document StructuredSerializeOptions. r=sefeng

The web standard linked from MessagePort.webidl doesn't make it quickly clear
what StructuredSerializeOptions is used for so I added a brief summary to make
it quicker to figure out. Note: I don't have much experience with this class so
my description may be incomplete.

Comment 13

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: Bug 1724645 - update PerformanceMark to User Timing L3. r=sefeng

To follow the spec more closely, some functionality moved from
performance.mark to the PerformanceMark constructor.

Depends on D142624

Comment 14

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: Bug 1724645 - add negative PerformanceMark startTime User Timing test. r=sefeng

Depends on D142625

Comment 15

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: Bug 1724645 - make structured-serialize-detail tests more robust. r=sefeng

In the existing code, these tests will pass if detail is a nonsense value, like
undefined, e.g. since undefined does not equal the original value. The code I
added makes sure the values are accurate too. This pattern already existed in
the first test in the file.

Depends on D142626

Comment 16

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

This is mostly complete. I just need to figure out:

• how to handle shouldResistFingerprinting()
• if some tests are worth adding

Comment 17

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: Bug 1724645 - add tests for 'new PerformanceMark' in WPT mark-errors. r=sefeng

Depends on D142627

Comment 18

[Michael Comella (:mcomella) [NI reported issues only: ex-Mozilla]]

Attachment: Bug 1724645 - add test_performance_user_timing_dying_global.html. r=sefeng

This test tests for a bug I discovered in my code that would crash the browser
if certain User Timing APIs were called on the dying iframe global.

I created a new test, rather than using test_performance_user_timing.html,
because it seemed like the code I added to set up the iframe did not easily fit
into the testing model of test_performance_user_timing.

Depends on D142900

Comment 19

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/b9c1829dd475
document StructuredSerializeOptions. r=smaug
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/139ce1e88b31
update PerformanceMark to User Timing L3. r=sefeng,smaug
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/ff1c5530b65e
add negative PerformanceMark startTime User Timing test. r=sefeng
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/26467e1f89ca
make structured-serialize-detail tests more robust. r=sefeng
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/ddc932dd3d80
add tests for 'new PerformanceMark' in WPT mark-errors. r=sefeng
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/69f82055f891
add test_performance_user_timing_dying_global.html. r=sefeng,smaug

Comment 20

[Web Platform Test Sync Bot [:wpt-sync] (Matrix: #interop:mozilla.org)]

Created web-platform-tests PR https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/33797 for changes under testing/web-platform/tests

Comment 21

[Marian-Vasile Laza]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b9c1829dd475
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/139ce1e88b31
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ff1c5530b65e
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/26467e1f89ca
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ddc932dd3d80
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/69f82055f891

Comment 22

[Web Platform Test Sync Bot [:wpt-sync] (Matrix: #interop:mozilla.org)]

Upstream PR merged by moz-wptsync-bot