-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.4k
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
Conversation
can you retitle PR to indicate more than 1 change. especially about the loadfast change. |
ya, retitled |
There was a problem hiding this 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; | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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' : |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ya done
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sweet, LGTM
Oh, there's one unit test issue. LGTM after that :) |
works-offline
if the audit failed