Valentin Gosu [:valentin] (he/him) Assignee
	Description • 7 years ago

The implementation we landed has several issues that were not detected by the web-platform tests:

- Some of the timestamps were DOMTimeMilliSec instead of DOMHighResTimeStamp
- The timestamps were absolute, rather than relative to startTime.
- The PerformanceNavigationTiming entry should only be available after the page is fully loaded

Apart from fixing the above problems, I indent to add a pref to disable this feature if needed.

	Andrea Marchesini [:baku]
	Comment 4 • 7 years ago
mozreview-review

Comment on attachment 8914999 [details]
Bug 1403926 - Add pref for PerformanceNavigationTiming

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/186266/#review191344

	Andrea Marchesini [:baku]
	Comment 5 • 7 years ago
mozreview-review

Comment on attachment 8915000 [details]
Bug 1403926 - Make the PerformanceNavigationTiming timestamps be relative to startTime

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/186268/#review191348

	Andrea Marchesini [:baku]
	Comment 6 • 7 years ago
mozreview-review

Comment on attachment 8915001 [details]
Bug 1403926 - Make sure PerformanceNavigationTiming timestamps are correct

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/186270/#review191352

	Pulsebot
	Comment 7 • 7 years ago

Pushed by valentin.gosu@gmail.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/4af284ac9c15
Add pref for PerformanceNavigationTiming r=baku
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/6df68b0f2c76
Make the PerformanceNavigationTiming timestamps be relative to startTime r=baku
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/969c5b28ee16
Make sure PerformanceNavigationTiming timestamps are correct r=baku

	Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)
	Comment 8 • 7 years ago
bugherder

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4af284ac9c15
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6df68b0f2c76
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/969c5b28ee16

	Eric Shepherd [:sheppy]
	Comment 9 • 7 years ago

Docs need to ensure that the type changes are reflected, as well as the existence of the preference and its default status.

	Chris Mills [:cmills]
	Comment 10 • 7 years ago

Most of the information on the ref pages seemed pretty much right, so I've only made a couple of small changes. However, I have added a section of notes to the main interface page, and to the Fx 58 rel notes to explain these changes:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/PerformanceNavigationTiming#Gecko_notes
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/58#DOM

Does this sound OK?

	Valentin Gosu [:valentin] (he/him) Assignee
	Comment 11 • 7 years ago

(In reply to Chris Mills (Mozilla, MDN editor) [:cmills] from comment #10)
> Most of the information on the ref pages seemed pretty much right, so I've
> only made a couple of small changes. However, I have added a section of
> notes to the main interface page, and to the Fx 58 rel notes to explain
> these changes:
> 
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/
> PerformanceNavigationTiming#Gecko_notes
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/58#DOM
> 
> Does this sound OK?

Since the bugs referenced by the first three bullet points were only live for a few weeks on Nightly, I don't think we need to mention the "improvements". The pref name is great to have in the docs.

Thanks!

	Chris Mills [:cmills]
	Comment 12 • 7 years ago

(In reply to Valentin Gosu [:valentin] from comment #11)
> (In reply to Chris Mills (Mozilla, MDN editor) [:cmills] from comment #10)
> > Most of the information on the ref pages seemed pretty much right, so I've
> > only made a couple of small changes. However, I have added a section of
> > notes to the main interface page, and to the Fx 58 rel notes to explain
> > these changes:
> > 
> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/
> > PerformanceNavigationTiming#Gecko_notes
> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/58#DOM
> > 
> > Does this sound OK?
> 
> Since the bugs referenced by the first three bullet points were only live
> for a few weeks on Nightly, I don't think we need to mention the
> "improvements". The pref name is great to have in the docs.
> 
> Thanks!

OK, no worries. I've updated the docs to just mention to pref.