On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:03, Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:01 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 16:32, Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:20 PM Yuzu Saijo <yu...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Domenic for bringing up the concerns! >>>> >>>> - I found >>>> performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js >>>> >>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js> >>>> which >>>> seems like it needs to be updated from "error-document" to >>>> "navigation-failure". That's worth looking into in case it means the >>>> implementation is also not yet updated. >>>> >>>> > Updated all the strings to match the spec-defined strings. >>>> >>>> - I also found that the Chromium test directory is full of >>>> -expected.txt files >>>> >>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/abort-block-bfcache.window-expected.txt?q=NotRestoredReasonDetails&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc&start=21>, >>>> which seem to match up with the failures on wpt.fyi >>>> >>>> <https://wpt.fyi/results/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&q=performance-timeline%2Fnot-restored-reasons>. >>>> Will those be addressed before shipping? >>>> >>>> > Now the failing tests and the expected files are down to three. >>>> 1) parser-aborted >>>> We currently block with different reason("loading"), as we haven't >>>> worked on differentiating loading vs parser getting aborted. >>>> >>> >>> Note that "loading" is a nonstandard reason, so it would be bad to ship >>> in that state. It should either be the correct reason ("parser-aborted") or >>> the generi "masked" reason. >>> >> >> "parser-aborted" is a reason that Chrome doesn't currently emit (it >> doesn't exist in the code). I'm not sure how we ended up speccing a reason >> that doesn't exist but I don't think we punt the entire NRR feature for >> another milestone for that. >> >> >> >>> 2) navigation-failure >>>> We do report "navigation-failure" when the document errors( >>>> implementation >>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/renderer_host/back_forward_cache_impl.cc;drc=f4a00cc248dd2dc8ec8759fb51620d47b5114090;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=912>), >>>> but somehow the test only reports "http-status-not-ok" which is the chrome >>>> internal reason. >>>> >>> >>> Similar to the above. >>> >> >> I think this one we can just make change http-status-no-ok to >> navigation-failure. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> I will look into this more. >>>> 3) weblock >>>> Chrome currently blocks with another reason here (masked), so this >>>> failure will not go away. Maybe I should make WPTs to test if the expected >>>> reason exists in the list, instead of checking the complete list. >>>> >>> >>> Allowing an implementation to always do "masked" and pass the tests >>> seems reasonable to me. >>> >> >> I think this is a general issue with the testing. It should always be OK >> for a UA to have extra reasons, e.g. when we do add parser-aborted, loading >> will continue to show up. I guess we could add a hack to suppress loading >> if parser-aborted is present but really what we care about in these tests >> is that the specced reason is present in the specced case, >> > > As we've discussed elsewhere on this thread, extra reasons are not OK; the > APIs we ship need to be specified. "masked" is always OK though, per the > spec. > Any restore can be blocked for multiple reasons. That can be for a mix of common and UA-specific reasons (all of which appear in the spec). As long as the common reason appears in the test for the common reason, the test should pass. Otherwise are writing tests that assert that UA-specific reasons are absent in some cases. I don't think we should be doing that. UAs can block on UA-specific reasons whenever they want and be within spec, F > > >> >> F >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> - I found a nonstandard toJSON() in NotRestoredReasonDetails >>>> >>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/timing/not_restored_reasons.idl;l=12;drc=6211b1c8268b239694bd84d7a99e508a15dc6dea> >>>> in >>>> Chromium. Was the intent to specify that? >>>> >>>> > Added this to the spec, thanks! >>>> >>> >>>> - Can you confirm that Chromium does not plan to ship any >>>> nonstandard not restored reason strings, beyond the specified "fetch", >>>> "navigation-failure", "parser-aborted", "websocket", "lock", and >>>> "masked"? >>>> >>>> > We plan to add user-agent specific reasons to the spec in the >>>> may-block section. >>>> This is the draft PR <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10154/files> >>>> (have't added the explanation for each reason yet). >>>> Is it okay to ship while we work on the follow-up PR? >>>> >>> >>> You could ship the portion that is fully specified, but the portions in >>> the draft PR would not be approved for shipment until they reach the usual >>> bars (e.g., a fully reviewed spec, web platform tests, other-vendor >>> positions, etc.). >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 2:33:04 PM UTC+9 Domenic Denicola >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 12:51 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 12:26, Domenic Denicola <dom...@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:40 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola <dom...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am happy with the spec progress here and don't think it's a >>>>>>>>> significant blocker for the Intent at this point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the tests and implementation: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - I found >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js> >>>>>>>>> which seems like it needs to be updated from "error-document" to >>>>>>>>> "navigation-failure". That's worth looking into in case it means >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> implementation is also not yet updated. >>>>>>>>> - I also found that the Chromium test directory is full of >>>>>>>>> -expected.txt files >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/abort-block-bfcache.window-expected.txt?q=NotRestoredReasonDetails&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc&start=21>, >>>>>>>>> which seem to match up with the failures on wpt.fyi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://wpt.fyi/results/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&q=performance-timeline%2Fnot-restored-reasons>. >>>>>>>>> Will those be addressed before shipping? >>>>>>>>> - I found a nonstandard toJSON() in NotRestoredReasonDetails >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/timing/not_restored_reasons.idl;l=12;drc=6211b1c8268b239694bd84d7a99e508a15dc6dea> >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> Chromium. Was the intent to specify that? >>>>>>>>> - Can you confirm that Chromium does not plan to ship any >>>>>>>>> nonstandard not restored reason strings, beyond the specified >>>>>>>>> "fetch", >>>>>>>>> "navigation-failure", "parser-aborted", "websocket", "lock", and >>>>>>>>> "masked"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know specifically what is there right now but I would >>>>>>>> expect that we will ship others. E.g. BroadcastChannel blocks BFCache >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> Chrome and Mozilla but not WebKit and there is currently disagreement. >>>>>>>> Why >>>>>>>> would it be better to show "masked" for that case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea is to follow the standards and not ship nonstandard >>>>>>> behavior. The current spec PR actually only allows sending "masked" in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> cross-origin case, and doesn't allow sending it for BroadcastChannel. If >>>>>>> the intention is to send some value in the BroadcastChannel case (which >>>>>>> is this >>>>>>> part of the spec >>>>>>> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsing-the-web.html#document-state:~:text=User%20agents%20may,keeping%20it%20cached.>) >>>>>>> then that needs to be specified in the spec PR before shipping such a >>>>>>> value >>>>>>> in Chromium. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BFCaching is never required by spec. That means any browser can block >>>>>> BFCache at any time, for any reason and still be in spec. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. But a browser cannot create values for the >>>>> NotRestoredReasonDetails's reason property which are not in the spec, >>>>> while >>>>> staying spec-compliant. This is similar to how we cannot have, e.g., >>>>> DOMException's name property returning arbitrary values; we instead >>>>> document >>>>> them all in the spec >>>>> <https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#idl-DOMException-error-names>, and >>>>> then document that some of them may be thrown in implementation-specific >>>>> circumstances (example <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#killing-scripts> >>>>> ). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think what's missing is that said we would maintain a registry of >>>>>> reasons that were not in the spec so that when we block for unspecced >>>>>> reasons, we don't proliferate a bunch of undocumented names. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how to express that in the spec, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We discussed how to do so upthread: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/bfcache-dev/c/ufQx6r6su6U/m/vyQM9nGHAwAJ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> F >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> F >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 5:38 PM Yuzu Saijo <yu...@google.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is now ready to ship, now that we have all the approvals on the >>>>>>>>>> ChromeStatus >>>>>>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5684908759449600?gate=6535221965488128>and >>>>>>>>>> the spec draft <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360> is >>>>>>>>>> close to agreement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you please take a look at this again? >>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:00:51 AM UTC+9 Chris >>>>>>>>>> Harrelson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please also make sure to complete all of the other shipping >>>>>>>>>>> gate reviews >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bqvB1oap0Yc/m/YlO8DEHgAQAJ> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good, I will create a list on the explainer >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md> >>>>>>>>>>>> for the "may block" reasons then. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Re: exposing NotRestoredReasons interface instead of object in >>>>>>>>>>>> idl: >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the implementation in this CL >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4770594> >>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>> This might be a basic question, but is there any difference on >>>>>>>>>>>> how to call the API from users' perspective, when the exposed >>>>>>>>>>>> attribute is >>>>>>>>>>>> an interface vs object? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:06:49 AM UTC+9 >>>>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 6:44 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked issue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/issues/2>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the end goal should be: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Every reason that a browser ever emits, is found in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification somewhere. (It doesn't have to be the HTML >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec, e.g. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech synthesis reason could live in the speech synthesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no intrinsic reason for speech synthesis to block >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BFCache. It just happens that Chrome blocked it. There's no spec >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unload to block BFCache, in fact the spec says that it doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's good for us to have agreed names, e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unload-event-handler". Should we put into various specs "if an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to block BFCache because X has been used, they should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason `Y`"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - If browsers prevent bfcache restoration for a reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not found in a spec, it is always translated to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standardized reason such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "unknown". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This avoids the usual interop problems with vendor-specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions to the web platform, such as: no clear specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings to use; no clear point at which the reason is added to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document's reasons list; etc. Although you claim these reasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiosyncratic to Chrome, that won't necessarily be the case; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Firefox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has unload handler as a reason, and I suspect most user agents >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have memory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limitations or similar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome has over 100 reasons. I'd say at least 50 of them are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actionable such that you wouldn't want to lump them into an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opaque >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unknown" category. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not relish the idea of updating 50 places in spec to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> insert a name to be used if you decide to block. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about maintaining a central list of reasons with low >>>>>>>>>>>>>> friction to add new reasons even if they are browser-specific? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where you *must* block should still be inline in spec (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also on the list), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds great to me. We should probably make this >>>>>>>>>>>>> separation clear in the spec, e.g. the "must" list will have >>>>>>>>>>>>> cross-references you can follow, whereas the "may" list ends up >>>>>>>>>>>>> only being >>>>>>>>>>>>> cross-referenced from some generic location like >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsing-the-web.html#note-bfcache:~:text=User%20agents%20may,keeping%20it%20cached. >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> F >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could have a discussion about allowing vendor-specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in the API *in addition* to the standardized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons. For example, we could have one of the standardized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "user-agent-specific", and then add an additional field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> userAgentSpecificInfo. But I would like to see significantly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion with other vendors before going that route. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:56 PM Yuzu Saijo <yu...@google.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +bfcache-dev >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was talking to Fergal today and discussed this, and I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure about adding browser-specific reasons to the spec. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, some reasons like "speech synthesis API is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used" / "unload handler" are completely specific to Chrome, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really make sense to add them to the spec, even with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> namespace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (x-speechsysthesis / x-unloadhandler). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we can document the reasons somewhere in a shared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list but not in the spec? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the API would be more useful if it can give as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information as possible, not limited to the specced reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yuzu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 12:39:17 PM UTC+9 Yuzu Saijo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *> there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface defined in Chromium?* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me address this implementation and delay the shipping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the chromium implementation matches the proposed spec. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing it out! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same for WPT. I will add tests for all the standardized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *> Can you confirm that you're only shipping the specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four?* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have ~50 not restored reasons, and in theory we will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to remove most of them except for the standardized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in reality it will take time for us to support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the reasons and we need to keep blocking on them for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, our plan was to expose the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-standardized reasons too, but in a way that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishable from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standardized reasons as you suggested here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/issues/2> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realized that we need to add browser specific reasons to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spec as well. Let me add that and send a review request >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yuzu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:07:05 PM UTC+9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, checking the tests, it seems like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently-implemented reasons don't match the spec. E.g. this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/performance-navigation-timing-bfcache-reasons-stay.tentative.window.js> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason to be "WebSocket", but the specification says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "websocket" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (lowercase). I couldn't find tests for the other three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:04 PM Domenic Denicola < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have some questions about how well the implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here matches up with the spec. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface defined in Chromium? The relevant attribute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on PerformanceNavigationTiming returns object? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/timing/performance_navigation_timing.idl;l=33?q=NotRestoredReasons%20file:%5C.idl&ss=chromium>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems like a problematic mismatch... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second, I can't find exactly where the list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> script-exposed not restored reasons are. But, I'll note >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Chromium >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to have ~50 such reasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main:content/browser/renderer_host/back_forward_cache_metrics.h;drc=6754d1409bf5099314eea7e87e896622ade9bc0f;l=49>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas you've only specified 4 (fetch, navigation-failure, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parser-aborted, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> websocket). Can you confirm that you're only shipping the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified four? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:11 AM Yoav Weiss < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:28 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yu...@google.com, yu...@chromium.org, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fer...@chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explainer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Design docs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NotRestoredReason API will report the list of reasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why a page is not served from BFcache in a frame tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure, via >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PerformanceNavigationTiming API. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UI>Browser>Navigation>BFCache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:UI%3EBrowser%3ENavigation%3EBFCache> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/739 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Issues addressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gecko: Defer ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/766) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once issues (standardized reasons & unsalvageable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents), they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch to positive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the "standardized reasons" part is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed in your PR. Is the same true for the second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit: No signal ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/154 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web developers: Positive ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/navigation-timing/issues/171#issuecomment-1062672989 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other signals: Positive from Origin Trial users: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How likely are you to keep using this feature? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 92% answered likely, 8% (1 vote) is unsure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Security >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do not report detailed information about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross-origin iframes. See Security and Privacy section >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md#security-and-privacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the explainer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView application risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing APIs, such that it has potentially high risk for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Android >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView-based applications? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In DevTools console, try: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance.getEntriesByType('navigation')[0].notRestoredReasons; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Android WebView)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NotRestoredReasons API is available on all platforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including WebView, but back/forward cache is not enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on WebView. So on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView, NotRestoredReasons API should always say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the page is blocked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from being restored from bfcache with the reason being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like “not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Currently it reports null due to a bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1459533> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial instructions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/rubberyuzu/bfcache-not-retored-reason/blob/main/HowToTest.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flag nameblink RunTimeEnabledFeature: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BackForwardCacheSendNotRestoredReasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/platform/runtime_enabled_features.json5;l=423?q=BackForwardCacheSendNotRestoredReasons%20-f:out&ss=chromium> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1326344 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Launch bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4200848 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on desktop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on desktop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on Android >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on Android >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on WebView >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial WebView last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial WebView first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on WebView >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future web compat or interop issues. Please list open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5684908759449600 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to prototype: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoGAzjUjzv3WmxcRpUSBgnA-AHQ05kh9gXc%2BQB8pRM6%2BfA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to Experiment: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoHe391sAB2PdbEVw9uiSPFxTB_EYsRizcPpZ7-pg16O0A%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to Extend Experiment: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAA5e698QcKZSthm%3Dz_4pi8cOzi4kfbx-AXveC%2BAKimUh-tMycA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status <https://chromestatus.com/>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoHYpT3sxWV%2BEipL5NcNSWy8fOdDdAroucmNb%3DZvxJWRBA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoHYpT3sxWV%2BEipL5NcNSWy8fOdDdAroucmNb%3DZvxJWRBA%40mail.gmail.com?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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXtkH6O82W%2BWm9ckCyYasSJt2cbs9VA4VZAmYhtivgj4g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXtkH6O82W%2BWm9ckCyYasSJt2cbs9VA4VZAmYhtivgj4g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "bfcache-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it, send an email to bfcache-dev...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/bfcache-dev/CAM0wra-P3NxELP28%3Dgh%3D3ROC35m8ijS_5RRcStyjFew1AXNyEg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/bfcache-dev/CAM0wra-P3NxELP28%3Dgh%3D3ROC35m8ijS_5RRcStyjFew1AXNyEg%40mail.gmail.com?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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/43e32f0e-454e-4525-b317-cbe492e2f23bn%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/43e32f0e-454e-4525-b317-cbe492e2f23bn%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/CAAozHLmXCA-2g-_4Hnwj5LJYtgHp7HKq%2BStRiWV6%2B0fOE6T9qg%40mail.gmail.com.
