Add `console.timeStamp()` to the specification #236

bmeurer · 2024-07-12T09:36:54Z

This adds a minimal (vague) definition for the timeStamp() method, based on its current behavior across Chromium, Firefox, and Safari, and the MDN documentation¹.

Ref: #140

At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):
- Google
- Mozilla
- Apple
Implementations already exist:
- Chromium
- Gecko
- WebKit
MDN documentation already exists.
The top of this comment includes a clear commit message to use.

Preview | Diff

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/console/timestamp_static ↩

This adds a minimal (vague) definition for the `timeStamp()` method, based on its current behavior across Chromium, Firefox, and Safari, and the MDN documentation[^1]. [^1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/console/timestamp_static Ref: whatwg#140

bmeurer · 2024-07-12T09:38:02Z

@domfarolino Let's get the ball rolling here. 💪

@and-oli Please loop in your contacts with other browser vendors here.

domfarolino · 2024-07-12T12:05:28Z

Hmm, it looks like you removed this line about tests from the pull request template? Can you add that back and maybe write some tests for this API? You can follow the pattern in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/console. Note the state of testing is a little sad at this point, since these are basically just manual tests :(

index.bs

domfarolino · 2024-07-12T12:09:07Z

index.bs

@@ -274,6 +275,12 @@ for plans to make {{console/timeEnd()}} and {{console/timeLog()}} formally repor
 console when a given |label| does not exist in the associated <a>timer table</a>.
 </p>

+<h4 id="timestamp" oldids="timestamp-label,dom-console-timestamp" method for="console">timeStamp(|label|)</h4>


Maybe this should go in its own section about performance APIs? I guess this is kind of time related, but the existing timing APIs all have to do with keeping track of literal time stamps that get printed for the developer, where as timeStamp() seems to not interact with that timer table at all, and be more focused on interacting with a performance console.

This sounds very similar to console.markTimeline() actually. Am I correct in thinking it does not deal with actual raw times or timestamps at all?

(Also this is separate, and maybe I am dumb, but can you show me where the marked point actually shows up in the Performance panel's UI, when this API is called? I can't seem to find it when I call the API)

can you show me where the marked point actually shows up in the Performance panel's UI, when this API is called?

In Chrome, any call to console.timeStamp that happens during a recording is shown inside the "Timings" track.

and yeah at least in Chrome, you are right about timeStamp being independent from the other timing APIs in console. There, it simply adds an entry to the data buffer of the performance panel (a trace event)

Got it, can you confirm whether or not other browsers behave the same (or at least are as distinct from the other timing APIs as in Chrome)? That will help inform the tests we'll need for this I think.

According to MDN, console.timeStamp() is solely intended for the purpose of adding data to performance traces, and from my tests with Firefox, that's exactly what happens there.

@and-oli can you confirm for Safari?

@domfarolino Let me know if you want me to put this into a separate section on Performance APIs.

Friendly ping.

Sorry for the delay. Safari also uses console.timeStamp solely to add markers to the Timelines tab: see docs

and-oli · 2024-07-12T12:13:25Z

@dcrousso @nchevobbe

dcrousso · 2024-07-12T16:07:09Z

index.bs

@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ namespace console { // but see namespace object requirements below
  undefined time(optional DOMString label = "default");
  undefined timeLog(optional DOMString label = "default", any... data);
  undefined timeEnd(optional DOMString label = "default");
+  undefined timeStamp(optional DOMString label = "default");


im not sure exactly the behavior of Chrome/Firefox/etc., but at least in WebKit there is no = "default" value (i.e. calling console.timeStamp() will show "Timestamp" in the UI)

Yeah, Chromium appears to not use "default" at all. At least when provided with no string, it shows "TimeStamp: <empty string technically here>" in the UI which I think matches Safari, but I fear I am too dumb to figure out where in the "Timelines" UI calls to console.timeStamp() actually show up.

Yes, I just fixed V8 last week to have the = "default" value for all console.time*() APIs, including console.timeStamp(). Maybe we can update JSC as well to have consistency.

i kinda prefer it showing "Timestamp" in the UI, but i dont feel too strongly about it

we could always have the API use = "default" and then in the UI check if === "default" and if so show "Timestamp"

Ok, so we can stick to = "default" for consistency here?

we could always have the API use = "default" and then in the UI check if === "default" and if so show "Timestamp"

This seems a little funky, especially since Safari treats console.timeStamp() differently from console.timeStamp("default")—the former defaults to "TimeStamp" and the latter prints "default". Whereas Chrome shows "TimeStamp: default" for both. I think it makes more sense to stick with = "default" personally. Do you think Safari's inspector would be willing to budge on this @dcrousso ?

like i mentioned, im not a huge fan of showing "default" in the UI as i think it's not super clear (especially when compared to showing "Timestamp"), but Web Inspector certainly can adopt the behavior of DOMString label = "default" and then have the UI adjust based on whether a value was actually provided

So that means we are good to go with this?

Web Inspector could also unconditionally show “Timestamp: <label-which-defaults-to-‘default’>” to do what chrome does. Either way I agree this isn’t a big deal.

@bmeurer it would be nice to know what Firefox does here (see #236 (comment)) but I think we’re probably good.

index.bs

bmeurer · 2024-07-24T06:54:43Z

Hmm, it looks like you removed this line about tests from the pull request template? Can you add that back and maybe write some tests for this API? You can follow the pattern in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/console. Note the state of testing is a little sad at this point, since these are basically just manual tests :(

Beyond testing that the function exists on the console object, how would we go about adding other (meaningful) tests?

bmeurer · 2024-07-30T13:06:03Z

Hmm, it looks like you removed this line about tests from the pull request template? Can you add that back and maybe write some tests for this API? You can follow the pattern in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/console. Note the state of testing is a little sad at this point, since these are basically just manual tests :(

Beyond testing that the function exists on the console object, how would we go about adding other (meaningful) tests?

@domfarolino any thoughts here?

domfarolino · 2024-12-01T15:46:42Z

Sadly I don't think we can do much more than add a few manual tests to WPT, and do whatever vendor-specific testing you can do. I think this PR is good to go % https://github.com/whatwg/console/pull/236/files#r1676151812. @bmeurer does Firefox match Chrome in this case? (I couldn't find where Firefox puts timeStamp() marks on its performance timeline). If it does match Chrome, we can just land this since it would match 2/3 implementations without strong objections from another.

domfarolino reviewed Jul 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

domfarolino reviewed Jul 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

domfarolino added impacts documentation Used by documentation communities, such as MDN, to track changes that impact documentation needs tests Moving the issue forward requires someone to write tests labels Jul 12, 2024

dcrousso reviewed Jul 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

Remove unnecessary code

2519cb2

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add `console.timeStamp()` to the specification #236

Add `console.timeStamp()` to the specification #236

bmeurer commented Jul 12, 2024 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading

bmeurer commented Jul 12, 2024

domfarolino commented Jul 12, 2024

domfarolino Jul 12, 2024

and-oli Jul 12, 2024

and-oli Jul 12, 2024

domfarolino Jul 22, 2024

bmeurer Jul 24, 2024

bmeurer Jul 24, 2024

bmeurer Jul 30, 2024

and-oli Aug 5, 2024

and-oli commented Jul 12, 2024

dcrousso Jul 12, 2024

domfarolino Jul 22, 2024

bmeurer Jul 24, 2024

dcrousso Jul 25, 2024

bmeurer Jul 30, 2024

domfarolino Dec 1, 2024

dcrousso Dec 1, 2024

bmeurer Dec 2, 2024

domfarolino Dec 2, 2024

bmeurer commented Jul 24, 2024

bmeurer commented Jul 30, 2024

domfarolino commented Dec 1, 2024

Add console.timeStamp() to the specification #236

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add console.timeStamp() to the specification #236

Conversation

bmeurer commented Jul 12, 2024 • edited by pr-preview bot Loading

Footnotes

bmeurer commented Jul 12, 2024

domfarolino commented Jul 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

and-oli commented Jul 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bmeurer commented Jul 24, 2024

bmeurer commented Jul 30, 2024

domfarolino commented Dec 1, 2024

Add `console.timeStamp()` to the specification #236

Add `console.timeStamp()` to the specification #236

bmeurer commented Jul 12, 2024 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading