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

Associate service worker timing with a response #1228

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 10, 2021

Conversation

noamr
Copy link
Contributor

@noamr noamr commented May 2, 2021

In preperation for w3c/ServiceWorker#1575 and w3c/navigation-timing#143, the response has to have an associated service worker timing. This would only affect navigation timing, where the actual start/ready timing of the service worker is a meaningful metric.


Preview | Diff

fetch.bs Outdated
@@ -1973,6 +1973,10 @@ this is also tracked internally using the request's <a for=request>timing allow
<dfn for=response id=concept-response-timing-info>timing info</dfn> (null or a
<a for=/>fetch timing info</a>), which is initially null.

<p>A <a for=/>response</a> has an associated
<dfn export for=response id=concept-response-service-worker-timing-info>service worker timing</dfn> (null or a
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Exceeds 100 columns.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also no need for the ID here and I wonder if we should name this field "service worker timing info" for consistency with "timing info".

@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented May 3, 2021

It would also be good to have a commit message that links the two service worker PRs to make it clear this is part of a larger whole.

In preparation for w3c/ServiceWorker#1575
and w3c/navigation-timing#143

This will allow exposing the service worker timing
as part of the Navigation Timing API.
@noamr noamr force-pushed the service-worker-timing branch from 0e3dba2 to 7e4df85 Compare May 9, 2021 07:46
@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented May 10, 2021

@noamr I still think we should name fields on response with some consistency.

@noamr
Copy link
Contributor Author

noamr commented May 10, 2021

@noamr I still think we should name fields on response with some consistency.

Ah I see I missed a comment.

@annevk annevk merged commit 208e271 into whatwg:main May 10, 2021
@noamr noamr deleted the service-worker-timing branch May 10, 2021 12:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants