Add more complex background resource usage tests for Fenix in CI
Categories
(Testing :: mozperftest, task, P2)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
People
(Reporter: kaya, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [fxp])
Currently we have a background resource usage test: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/performance/android-resource
This test is loading a single url to a single tab and takes the app to the background and records values for the resource usage. In the scope of this ticket, more complex testing scenarios will be implemented.
Updated•26 days ago
|
Updated•26 days ago
|
Comment 1•21 days ago
|
||
:kaya, can you provide some info on what these more complex background tests should be?
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•19 days ago
•
|
||
I was thinking about two different paths here:
- Focused on the resource consumption of content processes
- Focused on the resource consumption of main process
I think we can still track Chrome for 1st option and have comparisons. For 2nd option, I imagine that'd be Fenix-specific test cases, though could still be applied to Chrome. Also worth mentioning, I believe integrating the proxy service for website snapshot usage would be really helpful while we are implementing the complex scenarios as we would need to deal with less variables. The shell scripts I had already has the capability to add tabs, scroll up/down, load urls etc. But when a website has cookie banner dialogs etc, then the gestures' application gets tricky as the dialogs get the focus on themselves on the screen.
For 1:
- Loading more than 1 page (current test loads a single url).
- Creating more than 1 tab and loading pages.
- Back and forward navigations between pages (& tabs).
For 2:
- Navigating through the tree-dot menu (eg. to Bookmarks, Downloads, Settings etc. and navigating back.). This might help visualize the memory leaks or the amount getting deallocated etc.
There's also a case with the Extensions, but may easily fall under a separate ticket. That would be to measure the performance of some of very popular extensions in case they regress any perfomance issues. Not sure how you'd feel about that and whether it is worth adding to our infrastructure.
Description
•