Ping. Does my proposal to do enabled-by-default (so that testing environments don't miss this again) prior to having ramped this up to 100% make sense or is that considered bad practise? Current status is ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT in M111 (currently Canary), which would need to be reverted if we either want to delay this to M112 or not do ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT at all until 100% launch.
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 12:45:20 PM UTC+1 Henrik Boström wrote: > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 11:39:36 AM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote: > Thanks for filing an intent and moving the trial to 0% on stable. > > From responses on the other thread, it seems like there may be a few > months of lag between the time developers notice this upcoming change and > the time it'd reach users. > Do you know if a 3P deprecation trial would have better deployment latency? > > If a 3P deprecation trial still requires the affected websites to get the > latest version of the affected library in order to get that trial then, if > I understand correctly, I don't think this will help because it sounds like > the next version of Twilio will contain the fix for this in which case the > trial would not be needed. > > It sounds like it is just a matter of waiting for updates to be pushed, > but please correct me if I'm wrong about this +Anna and if a trial would > help. > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:20 AM Henrik Boström <h...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 11:16:59 AM UTC+1 Harald Alvestrand wrote: > I'm not sure an enterprise policy is appropriate - I see the same problem > with sunsetting the policy as with sunsetting the stat in general, and > usage of enterprise policies is (as far as I know) far more opaque to us > than origin trials or Finch feature usage. > > Oh, we definitely don't want that. If a flag is needed (other than the > Finch one) then I would much rather do a Reverse Origin Trial in that case. > I still think that has limited value but if that mitigates concerns then > I'm supportive of it. > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:13 AM Henrik Boström <h...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:24:58 PM UTC+1 Johnny Stenback wrote: > Is there an enterprise policy in place for this deprecation already? If > not, adding one seems appropriate given the challenges of rolling out even > simple fixes in some enterprise environments. > > One does not exist at the moment but I can add one > <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/enterprise/add_new_policy.md> > . > > > Thanks, > Johnny > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:16 AM Henrik Boström <h...@chromium.org> wrote: > Delaying the enabled-by-default to M112 is fine by me but I'll wait for a > resolution here before taking action. Currently it is enabled-by-default in > Canary. > > On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 12:41:23 PM UTC+1 philipp...@googlemail.com > wrote: > Am Fr., 27. Jan. 2023 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Henrik Boström < > h...@chromium.org>: > *Contact emails* > h...@chromium.org, h...@chromium.org > > *Background* > I attempted to remove this feature before but had forgotten to file an > intent to deprecate, background here > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/RsIktnGhHqw/>. > > *Specification* > The getStats() API spec is here <https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-stats/> and > it contains all the metrics. The deprecated metrics are also listed, but in > the obsolete section > <https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-stats/#obsolete-rtcmediastreamtrackstats-members>. > > There's an open issue to remove obsolete metrics from the spec as soon as > they are unshipped from modern browsers. This is considered a blocker for > the document to reach Proposed Recommendation status. > > *Summary* > WebRTC is a set of JavaScript APIs (spec > <https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/>) that allow real-time communication > between browsers. For the relevant metrics being removed, we're only > talking about the WebRTC use case that is sending or receiving audio or > video (typically Video Conferencing use cases), not the data channel use > cases that is a popular WebRTC use case, since data channel only use cases > would never have any tracks/streams. > > RTCPeerConnection.getStats() returns a map of string-to-objects, where > each object is one of the dictionaries defined in the stats spec. The > reason an app calls getStats() is mostly to report quality metrics (send > and receive resolutions, bitrates, glitches, video QP, etc) which can be > important for A/B experimentation. It can also be used in a way that > impacts app logic or even UX inside the app. Most common use case I can > think of: poll getStats() at 10 Hz and render volume bars for each > participant based on volume levels from stats objects. > > The deprecation in question is to remove some stats objects that were made > obsolete several years ago: all metrics on the "track" dictionary have been > moved to non-obsolete objects ("inbound-rtp", "outbound-rtp", > "media-source"). Reasons for wanting to deprecate include: > > - Spec-compliance: needed for browser implementations to align and for > the spec to become Proposed Recommendation. > - Web compat: Firefox never implement "track" or "steam" > > <https://wpt.fyi/results/webrtc-stats/supported-stats.https.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned> > due > to them being obsolete. > - Performance: the duplicated metrics make up ~40% of the stats report > size, which can be a significant number of bytes in larger meetings and it > is common for apps to poll getStats() 10 times per second. > - Tech debt: unblock removal of 1400 LOC. > > In the meantime, the obsolete metrics is duplicated in several places of > the stats report. > > *Risks* > *- Impossible to properly measure usage* > Because stats objects are exposed as JavaScript dictionaries, and because > apps have to iterate all objects of the stats report in order to find the > ones they are interested in or if they just dump all the data without > filtering, there is no way to measure how big the dependency is on track in > the real world. > > While we lack use counters, we have some positive signs: > > - Because Firefox does not have "track" or "stream" stats, any app > that can run on Firefox already exercises the paths of these not existing. > > > - An experiment to "unship deprecated metrics" has been running at 50% > Canary since October > > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/RsIktnGhHqw/m/3iqjODsMBwAJ>, > > giving developers testing Canary a heads-up. Nobody complained until the > experiment reached Stable. > - We got to 50% Stable in M109 and while we're in the process of > rolling it back now due to breaking twilio-video.js > <https://github.com/twilio/twilio-video.js/issues/1968>, it's > interesting to note that this is the only breakage we are aware of (that > does not mean there aren't more breakages, but I believe this at least > says > something about the severity). > > *- Selenium et al typically starts browsers from fresh profiles and hence > does not know the finch trial seed* > The most likely explanation for breakage is not testing Canary or test > environments not having access to Finch experiments. This makes the > behavior on Stable a surprise. > > *- To have a Reverse Origin Trial or not to have a Reverse Origin Trial?* > Migrating should require so few lines of code (look for stats.type == > 'inbound-rtp' instead of stats.type == 'track', for example) that it seems > to be a bigger hurdle for a developer to enroll in the trial than to simply > fix their code. > > *- Compatiblity risk* > There is one particular metric out of all metrics that, if you run Safari, > does not exist on "inbound-rtp" yet. This can be a problem, but again is > probably not a big problem because this particular metric was never > implemented on Firefox so apps already need to survive without it, and it > is very easy to write a fallback path for the Safari case: > > let trackIdentifer = null; // In Firefox this will never be set > regardless. > if (inboundRtp.trackIdentifier) { > // Spec-compliant browser. > trackIdentifier = inboundRtp.trackIdentifier; > } else if (inboundRtp.trackId) { > // Fallback-path for Safari or 1+ year old Chromium browsers. > trackIdentifier = report.get(inboundRtp.trackId).trackIdentifier; > } > > *Proposal* > Rollback to 0% Stable but keep the "unship deprecated" experiment at 50% > Canary/Beta. Wait for Twilio to fix their issue and do another rollout > attempt. Keep a slower rollout pace next time. > > I see limited amount of value in a Reverse Origin Trial since it appears > to be more effort to register to the trial than to fix the issue, if you > are affected. > > I do prefer to have the feature enabled-by-default in M111+ and overwrite > that default via Finch rather than the other way around as to not "turn off > the fire alarm" for non-Finch testing environments. I realize that is not > perfect (what if you run in a non-Finch environment) but it would reduce > overall risk. > > Thank you Henrik. I agree with one suggestion: only do default-off in > M112+ (which is branching so you would just need to revert this commit > <https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commit/3a4d52f365df03413a856ea20366b36e8fb8ea0b> > on > the M111 branch). > This gives developers another month to update (which itself should be > quick) and then rolling it out to their customers and users (which takes > time). > > I hope that the 50% rollout caused enough incidents (even though you may > never hear about some of them) to get the fixes in ASAP. > > cheers > > Philipp > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ch > romium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5ecf1ea6-c16c-464a-b529-439e05e > 4feedn%40chromium.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5ecf1ea6-c16c-464a-b529-439e05e4feedn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ch > romium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6a0b5bb9-addd-4a56-b053-1429bba > abe2dn%40chromium.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6a0b5bb9-addd-4a56-b053-1429bbaabe2dn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/74114b89-4855-4da4-9005-40eba3d0b195n%40chromium.org.
