New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like █ or █) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 690736 link

Starred by 0 users
Status: Assigned
Owner:
paulmeyer@chromium.org
Cc:
█ animohan@chromium.org
rbyers@chromium.org
█ dk...@chromium.org
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: 2017-02-16
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Task



Sign in to add a comment

Figure out the best links to put into console logs and reporting API reports for interventions/deprecations

Project Member Reported by ojan@chromium.org, Feb 10 2017 
Today we do ad hoc things when putting links for more information into console logs and in the future reporting API reports. We should standardize this so that we make sure those things point to useful pages. For example, today many point to a sparse chromestatus page or a bug on a github. 

Here's one proposal just to get discussion started:
1. Always point to chromestatus.com.
2. Have a standard template for intervention and deprecation chromestatus entries that ensure we communicate all the right things (what's changing, why we're changing it, how to fix your site if you hit this, how to contact us if you believe we have a bug or need to change what we're doing).

Rick, I'm tentatively assigning to you since you're owning reporting API, but we should probably all work together on this.

Comment 1 by cha...@chromium.org, Sep 12 2017

Components: -Blink>Infra>Predictability Internals>FeatureControl

Comment 2 by paulmeyer@chromium.org, Sep 15 2017

Cc: paulmeyer@chromium.org

Comment 3 by rbyers@chromium.org, Oct 30 2017

Cc: -paulmeyer@chromium.org rsch...@chromium.org rbyers@chromium.org ojan@chromium.org
Labels: -Pri-1 Pri-2
Owner: paulmeyer@chromium.org
In practice we have been using the chromestatus URLs for deprecations, and the  existing deprecations code does encourage that.  But the new code in Intervention.cpp just takes a string message.

Perhaps we should just require that all uses of Intervention.cpp and Deprecation.cpp APIs provide a chrome status ID, and then automatically generate a message including that?  I think it would be fine to have an opt-out, but there should be a comment explaining that you were required to have an information page with equivalent details (eg. link to chromestatus from there, or other way to get contact names, correct "file bug" link, etc).  For example, it probably makes sense that the "deprecate powerful features on insecure origins" cases get their own landing page (https://goo.gl/rStTGz) - though I think it could be improved.

dknox, ojan, rschoen, paulmeyer, thoughts?

Comment 4 by ojan@chromium.org, Oct 30 2017 

+1. That's always what I was picturing FWIW, i.e. providing an ID instead of a string by default.

Comment 5 by rsch...@chromium.org, Nov 22 2017 

SGTM

Comment 6 by ojan@chromium.org, May 8 2018

Cc: -ojan@chromium.org

Comment 7 by rsch...@chromium.org, Aug 9

Cc: -rsch...@chromium.org
►

Sign in to add a comment