| 07:34 | <jochen__> | annevk: Hiroshige is refactoring those tests. Maybe they're temporarily broken or smth? |
| 07:47 | <mkwst> | jochen__: Yes. This test was broken by that refactoring. It's less broken now. :() |
| 07:48 | <mkwst> | Bakkot: I put it on my list for this morning. |
| 10:04 | <ondras> | @JakeA: figured out that spamming twitter might not be the best way. Perhaps you can forward me to someone in particular to solve my Lighthous issue here on IRC? |
| 10:07 | <JakeA> | ondras: best plan would be to file an issue on the lighthouse repo with a reduced example |
| 10:07 | <JakeA> | ondras: please send it my way too, I'm curious 😀 |
| 10:08 | <ondras> | JakeA: it is a very simple static web/app with one html, one css and one js |
| 10:08 | <ondras> | JakeA: https://ondras.github.io/rri/ |
| 10:08 | <ondras> | not sure whether this would work as a "reduced" example though :/ |
| 10:08 | <ondras> | just tried installing chrome-unstable (81), still reports the weird non-sw response |
| 10:09 | <JakeA> | ondras: it's best to remove everything that doesn't contribute to the bug. You might find it isn't a lighthouse bug while doing that |
| 10:10 | <ondras> | yeah. |
| 10:26 | <ondras> | JakeA: I *think* I can see why the problem happens. It seems that the "offline" Lighthouse simulation does not limit the SW from performing a fetch. So even when in Lighthouse/offline, my SW performs a fetch (its strategy is online-first), returns the fetched data and this is considered "not returned from a sw" |
| 10:41 | <ondras> | @JakeA: reduced, published, submitted: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/issues/10237 |
| 10:53 | <JakeA> | ondras: this is an A+ reduction! At a glance, yeah, it looks like Lighthouse is in the wrong |
| 10:58 | <ondras> | JakeA: thanks. Looks like people generally recommend returning a cached version, even with stale-while-revalidate... |
| 10:59 | <JakeA> | ondras: online-first is problematic, but it's better than online-only |
| 10:59 | <annevk> | So I change some srcdoc stuff with javascript in this referrer policy test and Firefox logs a different referrer and Chrome yields undefined |
| 10:59 | <annevk> | Good times |
| 11:00 | <JakeA> | ondras: if you've got a connection, but it's just hanging, it still leaves the user with a while screen until it times out |
| 11:00 | <ondras> | JakeA: should be solvable with a timeout |
| 11:00 | <JakeA> | ondras: that's a bit better, but it still means you have that timeout per request |
| 11:01 | <JakeA> | 2 seconds for the html, then another 2 for the CSS and js, then another 2 for the data… even a short timeout can become a long delay |
| 11:04 | <ondras> | yes, the timeout would be a safety hatch, not a primary usage scenario |
| 20:57 | <smaug____> | Does some document explain mapping from ES spec language to things like microtasks |
| 21:00 | <smaug____> | Domenic: you might know |
| 21:01 | <Domenic> | smaug____: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#enqueuejob(queuename,-job,-arguments) |
| 21:01 | <Domenic> | Or I guess https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#integration-with-the-javascript-job-queue has a bit more background |
| 21:02 | <smaug____> | Domenic: ok, and how should one interpret https://tc39.es/proposal-weakrefs/#sec-clear-kept-objects |
| 21:02 | <smaug____> | "synchronous sequence of ECMAScript execution" |
| 21:03 | <Domenic> | No idea, seems like vague BS to me |
| 21:03 | <smaug____> | I couldn't find that kind of sentence in the es spec |
| 21:03 | <smaug____> | Domenic: ok, it felt like that to me too :) |
| 21:03 | <Domenic> | smaug____: ah it looks like https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4571/files is the actual intended integration |
| 21:05 | <Domenic> | smaug____: in particular https://whatpr.org/html/4571/webappapis.html#perform-a-microtask-checkpoint |
| 21:05 | <smaug____> | thanks |
| 21:31 | <andreubotella> | hey |
| 21:32 | <andreubotella> | the other day I opened my first bug on a standard, which turned out to be a good first issue, and I'd like to work on the PR |
| 21:32 | <andreubotella> | but I have a couple questions about the contributor agreement before I get started on it |
| 22:25 | <MikeSmith> | andreubotella: what are your questions |
| 22:26 | <andreubotella> | right |
| 22:27 | <andreubotella> | The agreement talks about getting your employer/client company to sign it if they work in "web technologies". |
| 22:27 | <andreubotella> | does that only mean browser developing, or does it extent to web dev too? |
| 22:28 | <MikeSmith> | andreubotella: it is unclear exactly what that term "web technologies" in the Participant Agreement means |
| 22:28 | <MikeSmith> | the agreement does not define the term |
| 22:29 | <andreubotella> | okay, so I guess I'll move to point 2 then. |
| 22:29 | <andreubotella> | I do web dev for a few clients, but I noticed and worked on this issue on my time. |
| 22:29 | <andreubotella> | I guess I don't need to have them sign, right? |
| 22:29 | <MikeSmith> | see https://github.com/whatwg/sg/issues/67 |
| 22:31 | <MikeSmith> | if you are an independent developer working for clients, that "web technologies" requirement is not relevant |
| 22:31 | <MikeSmith> | your clients are not your employer, in the sense the agreement means |
| 22:31 | <MikeSmith> | you are your own employer |
| 22:33 | <andreubotella> | ok, I thought I understood it to refer to clients too |
| 22:33 | <MikeSmith> | no |
| 22:33 | <MikeSmith> | it doesn't, not to clients |
| 22:33 | <andreubotella> | ok |
| 22:33 | <andreubotella> | so that solves it |
| 22:33 | <andreubotella> | thanks so much |
| 22:33 | <MikeSmith> | cheers |
| 22:34 | <andreubotella> | is there any process to go about working on the issue, other than just saying I'm working on it in a comment and then linking to the bug in the pull request? |
| 22:35 | <MikeSmith> | just saying in a comment that are you working on it is fine |
| 22:35 | <MikeSmith> | but if you want, you can also ask the spec editor(s) to assign the issue to you |
| 22:35 | <andreubotella> | right |
| 22:35 | <andreubotella> | thanks so much |
| 22:35 | <MikeSmith> | no problem |
| 22:36 | <MikeSmith> | thanks for working on stuff |
| 22:36 | <andreubotella> | sure |
| 22:37 | <andreubotella> | I read a lot of web standards, and the ambiguity in terms between code points and scalar values in Encoding was bugging me |
| 22:37 | <andreubotella> | and then I noticed some security implications |
| 22:37 | <andreubotella> | so that's the least I could do |
| 22:38 | <MikeSmith> | ah cool |