Thanks all! And thanks Rick for digging into the WebView numbers a bit more deeply, that makes me feel even better about this.
I'll be careful as I ship this. Thanks, Mason On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 8:48 AM Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM3 > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024, 8:42 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> I'm a bit worried about primarily chromium-sites or Android WebView apps >> who might have used this by accident instead of innerHTML. I took a look at >> WebView-specific UseCounters and found them to be less than half of the >> Chrome Android values (~0.0007% vs. 0.0002%), so I expect that just >> represents general web browsing rather than any significant >> WebView-specific usage. >> >> So seems worth trying to me (and disabling if there are non-trivial >> reports of issues). LGTM2 >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:58 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> LGTM1 to remove in M129, given the usecounter numbers >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:35 PM Mason Freed <masonfr...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd like to check back in on this deprecation. The drop in usage from >>>> May continued into June and July, with current numbers hovering around >>>> 0.003%: >>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3874. I >>>> added deprecation messages in M127, but that's not even in stable yet. My >>>> guess would be that usage will continue to drop as 127 goes to stable. >>>> >>>> Given the above, I'd like to re-request permission to remove the >>>> feature in M129, assuming all of the trends continue to look good. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mason >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 12:28:54 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: >>>> >>>>> LGTM3 for the deprecation in 127. I'd like to hold off on stamping the >>>>> removal approval until later but threatening (well, targetting) removal in >>>>> 129 seems ok. >>>>> >>>>> /Daniel >>>>> On 2024-05-31 02:44, Mason Freed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the LGTMs! >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 7:54 AM Daniel Bratell <bra...@sarasas.se> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Deprecating seems fine, especially since it's a relatively new API >>>>>> and less likely to be used on non-maintained sites, but removal seems a >>>>>> bit >>>>>> premature even if done slowly. Would it be better to let it bake a few >>>>>> milestones and see if a scary deprecation message threatening removal >>>>>> after >>>>>> the summer drives the usage down? >>>>>> >>>>> I'm starting to get the feeling that this would be a good idea. The >>>>> Enterprise folks on the chromestatus gate also asked for something similar >>>>> - 3 milestones of warning period before the deprecation. >>>>> >>>>> I'm inclined to just do that - it feels safer, and I don't think >>>>> there's a huge rush to turn this off. Especially with usage going in the >>>>> right direction, instead of further up. >>>>> >>>>> So I've modified the chromestatus >>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5081733588582400> to show a >>>>> shipping milestone of M129. Does that work? And I'll add a big console >>>>> error starting in M127. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 1:22 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >>>>> yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Your questions prompted me to take a closer look at the sample sites >>>>>>>> still hitting the use counter. I took a close look at the first 10 >>>>>>>> entries >>>>>>>> listed, and I think I found perhaps where the big drop came from. Of >>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>> ten sites, seven do not use getInnerHTML or getHTML at all. Likely not >>>>>>>> coincidentally, all seven are Shopify sites. My guess would be that >>>>>>>> Shopify >>>>>>>> very recently removed its usage of getInnerHTML? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW, internal code search brought up nothing. It's possible that >>>>>> this is a 3P app >>>>>> <https://shopify.dev/docs/apps/build/online-store/theme-app-extensions> >>>>>> that >>>>>> changed their use. (or that I'm simply failing to find the relevant >>>>>> change >>>>>> :D) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for checking that! It's always hard to figure out what happened >>>>> after the fact like this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The plan to ramp down usage is a good one, although as we previously >>>>>>> discussed in a different thread, it may cause some debugging challenges >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> developers. It is worthwhile to also reach out to some of the developers >>>>>>> whose sites you noticed would throw an exception -- just an FYI email >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> this feature is being removed. Given the fairly low usage, readily >>>>>>> available fixes (via getHTML() or possibly innerHTML) and your >>>>>>> commitment >>>>>>> to monitor for breakages, this looks good to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I might want to tweak this plan now that we're extending by 2/3 >>>>> milestones. Maybe now (after console warnings) it makes more sense to just >>>>> disable in one shot? >>>>> >>>>> I'll try to reach out to the sites I noticed. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Mason >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> /Daniel >>>>>> On 2024-05-29 10:22, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> LGTM2 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:10 PM Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:30 PM Mason Freed <mas...@chromium.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 8:15 AM Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The use counter for getInnerHTML() ( >>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3874) >>>>>>>>>> peaked at 0.05% of page loads using this function as of January >>>>>>>>>> 2024, and >>>>>>>>>> dropped precipitously toward 0.01% in May, 2024. This is presumably >>>>>>>>>> due to >>>>>>>>>> the shipment of its replacement, getHTML(). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's great to see the numbers reduce significantly. If the numbers >>>>>>>>> are being migrated to getHTML() though I would have expected >>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4781 >>>>>>>>> to grow by ~0.04 percentage points, but that one is still >>>>>>>>> significantly >>>>>>>>> lower (although growing). Is it possible that June 1 numbers would >>>>>>>>> show a >>>>>>>>> better balance? Do you by any chance know when the next data point is >>>>>>>>> expected to be visible on chromestatus? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm also assume people are using a readily available replacement >>>>>>>>> as opposed to just not using getInnerHTML, but it would be nice if >>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>> supported that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Great questions. So AFAIK the use counter plot for the current >>>>>>>> month is a continuous aggregation. I.e. the 0.0168% I see today (May >>>>>>>> 28) is >>>>>>>> as of the 28th, and will change tomorrow (slightly). Given that we're >>>>>>>> almost to the end of the month, I wouldn't expect a ton of shift. So I >>>>>>>> think you might be right that this isn't actually a shift to getHTML, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> just a shift away from getInnerHTML. See more below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your questions prompted me to take a closer look at the sample >>>>>>>> sites still hitting the use counter. I took a close look at the first >>>>>>>> 10 >>>>>>>> entries listed, and I think I found perhaps where the big drop came >>>>>>>> from. >>>>>>>> Of those ten sites, seven do not use getInnerHTML or getHTML at all. >>>>>>>> Likely >>>>>>>> not coincidentally, all seven are Shopify sites. My guess would be that >>>>>>>> Shopify very recently removed its usage of getInnerHTML? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW, internal code search brought up nothing. It's possible that >>>>>> this is a 3P app >>>>>> <https://shopify.dev/docs/apps/build/online-store/theme-app-extensions> >>>>>> that changed their use. (or that I'm simply failing to find the relevant >>>>>> change :D) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The real issue is that the remaining three sites *do* still use >>>>>>>> getInnerHTML, and all three throw exceptions when the feature is >>>>>>>> disabled. >>>>>>>> I can't perceive anything broken on the site, but the exception isn't a >>>>>>>> good sign. A few interesting tidbits: one of the three does appear to >>>>>>>> (properly) feature-detect getInnerHTML() yet an exception is still >>>>>>>> thrown >>>>>>>> that might or might not be related. The other two do not feature >>>>>>>> detect, >>>>>>>> and the exception is clear: "getInnerHTML is not a function". Very >>>>>>>> interestingly, none of the three use getInnerHMTL for anything >>>>>>>> declarative >>>>>>>> shadow dom related. They seem to just be using it as a way to get the >>>>>>>> innerHTML value. All three seem to be hand-written JS, so it's >>>>>>>> possible the >>>>>>>> sites were developed on Chrome in the last few years and the developer >>>>>>>> didn't notice that they should have done foo=el.innerHTML instead of >>>>>>>> foo=el.getInnerHTML(). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given that the use counter is very low (0.01%), I'd still like to >>>>>>>> push ahead with this deprecation. The above sites likely represent >>>>>>>> interop >>>>>>>> problems, since they'll break on other browsers already today. But I'd >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> to revise my plan: instead of going immediately to 100% removal, I'd >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> to use a slow ramp down over time, to monitor for reported breakage. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The plan to ramp down usage is a good one, although as we previously >>>>>>> discussed in a different thread, it may cause some debugging challenges >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> developers. It is worthwhile to also reach out to some of the developers >>>>>>> whose sites you noticed would throw an exception -- just an FYI email >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> this feature is being removed. Given the fairly low usage, readily >>>>>>> available fixes (via getHTML() or possibly innerHTML) and your >>>>>>> commitment >>>>>>> to monitor for breakages, this looks good to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LGTM1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Mason >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While 0.01% still represents high usage for deprecation, the >>>>>>>>>> numbers were significantly worse for the deprecation of the old >>>>>>>>>> `shadowroot` attribute, and the removal of that feature generated >>>>>>>>>> zero bug >>>>>>>>>> reports. It is my strong belief that since this feature is only >>>>>>>>>> shipped in >>>>>>>>>> Chrome, the vast majority of usage is guarded by feature checks. So >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> deprecation should be safer than it would seem from the numbers. I'd >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> to remove this feature in M127 in code, with a killswitch (a >>>>>>>>>> re-enable >>>>>>>>>> switch really) in case of problems. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Gecko*: No signal >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *WebKit*: No signal >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Web developers*: No signals >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Other signals*: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms >>>>>>>>>> (Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>>>> Yes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>>>> ? Yes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Flag name on chrome://flags ElementGetInnerHTML >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finch feature name ElementGetInnerHTML >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? False >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug https://crbug.com/1519972 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>> Shipping on desktop 127 >>>>>>>>>> Shipping on Android 127 >>>>>>>>>> Shipping on WebView 127 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web >>>>>>>>>> compat or interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to >>>>>>>>>> known >>>>>>>>>> github issues in the project for the feature specification) whose >>>>>>>>>> resolution may introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to >>>>>>>>>> naming >>>>>>>>>> or structure of the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5081733588582400?gate=5088451454304256 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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/CAM%3DNeDjZJvRAcpSj2cAWi6uW7yYmDV8HdMkqQjFOS3q%3DidB9fQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDjZJvRAcpSj2cAWi6uW7yYmDV8HdMkqQjFOS3q%3DidB9fQ%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/CAM%3DNeDh_myM1eudBh_%3DeY4F9UZN9vZxRa9%2BmV9vKSR9Nh1iHhw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDh_myM1eudBh_%3DeY4F9UZN9vZxRa9%2BmV9vKSR9Nh1iHhw%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/CADsXd2MvNLyYnrF2q%2BhEx8EAoiZsC_ws3Bj3%3DOw7K5m-hRAvDQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2MvNLyYnrF2q%2BhEx8EAoiZsC_ws3Bj3%3DOw7K5m-hRAvDQ%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/CAOmohSJ_LsKuzR2FezpC4cxyFsb5nUaG65LeidpyfSmFWVGJaQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohSJ_LsKuzR2FezpC4cxyFsb5nUaG65LeidpyfSmFWVGJaQ%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/CAM%3DNeDhoYiq3D6HFupxGhQL1SOSKVUFD%3DxQJGXTamyDvPTDr2A%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDhoYiq3D6HFupxGhQL1SOSKVUFD%3DxQJGXTamyDvPTDr2A%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohS%2BZW0sf1J4s1qCVQaLKZnQZ7712WXn%3D5v4rZPGb0AgtFQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohS%2BZW0sf1J4s1qCVQaLKZnQZ7712WXn%3D5v4rZPGb0AgtFQ%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY_2jbdZe6%3DMphTATNLym9C1E2M80hUfa%2BgzucajxKxXDA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY_2jbdZe6%3DMphTATNLym9C1E2M80hUfa%2BgzucajxKxXDA%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDjEFLgqkfBtRWbCJ2JjBChiyg%3D-_%2BrXVQFfr-EM18QARQ%40mail.gmail.com.
