Trim down default PDF viewer telemetry.
Categories
(Toolkit :: Default Browser Agent, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox121 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: nrishel, Assigned: nrishel)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Whiteboard: [fidedi-ope])
Attachments
(2 files)
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
jhirsch
:
data-review+
|
Details | Review |
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | Review |
Follow up to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742674.
After we have an understanding of what PDF viewers are commonly set to default, we need to trim down to a set of observed viewers. This will largely follow what already exists for default browsers.
Updated•3 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•3 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•2 years ago
|
Romain: would you like to take a crack at preparing the top N list from the WDBA default PDF handler data (per looker)? It's clear some of these need to be grouped. Perhaps we keep groups that amount to >1% of the pings and see how many that is?
While we're here, it would be helpful to trim whitespace from the raw PDF handler string.
Also while we're here, perhaps we could track down why we're getting null
at least 10% of the time (for Firefox 105, so we should be fishing the PDF default).
Assignee | ||
Updated•2 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•2 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #3)
Also while we're here, perhaps we could track down why we're getting
null
at least 10% of the time (for Firefox 105, so we should be fishing the PDF default).
I believe we chased this down to an error when inspecting the data - search included FF versions prior to the telemetry being added.
Worth noting that I did a lot of the relevant labour in this query; we could implement that normalize_pdf_default
and be done here.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•2 years ago
|
||
The "Other" category in that query is still fairly large, probably worth a round of finding trends in it.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 8•1 years ago
|
||
Comment 9•1 year ago
|
||
The bug assignee is inactive on Bugzilla, so the assignee is being reset.
Assignee | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•1 year ago
|
||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•1 year ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9351883 [details]
Bug 1756900 - Modify functionality to collect values for known default PDF handlers, instead of arbitrary ones. r=bytesized
Request for Data Collection Renewal
-
Provide a link to the initial Data Collection Review Request for this collection.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742674 -
When will this collection now expire?
Never -
Why was the initial period of collection insufficient?
Initial collection was intended as a precursor to determine what we wanted to track. Now that we have that data we are trimming it down to better match our lean data policy.
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 12•1 year ago
|
||
Comment 13•1 year ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f9931a2d3477
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/07fec736c4e7
Hey, sorry, was at a work week and then sick most of this week. Not a big deal in this particular case, but note that, in general, the data-review should be approved before landing. You can ping the data-stewards channel on matrix if you don't get a response within 24 hours and someone else should be able to help with the review. Looking at this now.
Comment on attachment 9351883 [details]
Bug 1756900 - Modify functionality to collect values for known default PDF handlers, instead of arbitrary ones. r=bytesized
data-review+
- Is the provided Data Collection Review complete, correct, and data-review+ by a Data Steward?
Yes.
- Is the data collection covered by the existing Firefox Privacy Notice?
Yes
Description
•