Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

core(fr): force use of devtools throttling in timespan mode #13013

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 8, 2021

Conversation

patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator

@patrickhulce patrickhulce commented Sep 7, 2021

Summary
Prevents audits from being marked as notApplicable/inconsistent when running in timespan mode by forcing use of devtools throttling and fixes our TBT audit to work in timespan mode.

I wrestled with the idea of a warning, but ultimately decided against it for this PR. The current flow of single-config means a warning would be printed every time, whether user action was required or not, or the logic for overrides is severed from the warning logic (overrides occur after resolution, warning would need to come before resolution to identify if it was manually specified as well as be default-config/preset aware, which expands the scope for what IMO, is a low value return).

If others feel strongly about the warning, happy to add to the burndown list for future.

Related Issues/PRs
ref #11313

@patrickhulce patrickhulce requested a review from a team as a code owner September 7, 2021 16:32
@patrickhulce patrickhulce requested review from adamraine and removed request for a team September 7, 2021 16:32
@google-cla google-cla bot added the cla: yes label Sep 7, 2021
@@ -451,5 +462,4 @@ describe('Fraggle Rock Config', () => {
});

it.todo('should support plugins');
it.todo('should adjust default pass options for throttling method');
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this was just missed as part of #12873

Copy link
Member

@adamraine adamraine left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These changes LGTM. With different settings being used in different steps, we could consider removing the top-level runtime settings from the flow report:

Screen Shot 2021-09-07 at 2 12 09 PM

@patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator Author

patrickhulce commented Sep 7, 2021

With different settings being used in different steps, we could consider removing the top-level runtime settings from the flow report:

This shouldn't affect either of those bullets we currently have there, but I agree we should encourage consistent settings within flow reports (and possibly add toplevel warnings if they don't match in critical ways)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants