Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

polish: show audits with debug string, don't fail loadfast4pwa on network latencies, works-offline change #2294

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
May 25, 2017

Conversation

patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator

  • doesn't hide passed audits with a debug string in "passed audits" section
  • only shows debug string on works-offline if the audit failed
  • flips loadfast4pwa to pass (but still show debug string) when latencies seem unrealistic
  • drive by text fix for loadfast4pwa TTI -> TTFI
    image

@paulirish
Copy link
Member

can you retitle PR to indicate more than 1 change. especially about the loadfast change.

@patrickhulce patrickhulce changed the title polish: show audits with debug string polish: show audits with debug string, don't fail loadfast4pwa on network latencies, works-offline May 17, 2017
@patrickhulce patrickhulce changed the title polish: show audits with debug string, don't fail loadfast4pwa on network latencies, works-offline polish: show audits with debug string, don't fail loadfast4pwa on network latencies, works-offline change May 17, 2017
@patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator Author

can you retitle PR to indicate more than 1 change. especially about the loadfast change.

ya, retitled

Copy link
Member

@paulirish paulirish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm % nit

// than issue time and even negative which throws off timing)
if (record._startTime < record._issueTime) {
return;
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lets keep this

debugString = 'WARNING: You may be failing this check because your test URL ' +
`(${artifacts.URL.initialUrl}) was redirected to "${artifacts.URL.finalUrl}". ` +
'Try testing the second URL directly.';
const explanation = passed ? 'Your test URL' :
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we want to show this at all if they passed? If they passed, it means that the initialUrl successfully redirected to finalUrl and finalUrl successfully loaded, so it seems like everything is good in that case?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

had that originally actually but it makes some sense that we flag that we don't know for sure if the original URL they wanted can be loaded offline, but the message is still a little off, I'll adjust it

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

eh you know what, I'll just hide it if it passed, we don't have any actionable information for them in that scenario anyway since LH won't test it

@@ -343,7 +343,8 @@ class CategoryRenderer {

const manualAudits = category.audits.filter(audit => audit.result.manual);
const nonManualAudits = category.audits.filter(audit => !manualAudits.includes(audit));
const passedAudits = nonManualAudits.filter(audit => audit.score === 100);
const passedAudits = nonManualAudits.filter(audit => audit.score === 100 &&
!audit.result.debugString);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

add this to the renders the passed audits test, maybe?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ya done

Copy link
Member

@brendankenny brendankenny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sweet, LGTM

@brendankenny
Copy link
Member

Oh, there's one unit test issue. LGTM after that :)

@brendankenny brendankenny removed the #BOB label May 25, 2017
@patrickhulce patrickhulce merged commit 296452e into master May 25, 2017
@patrickhulce patrickhulce deleted the polish_a branch May 25, 2017 16:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants