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

Issue 709211 link

Starred by 1 user
Status: Fixed
Owner:
cha...@chromium.org
Closed: Jun 2017
Cc:
█ amineer@chromium.org
█ falkn@chromium.org
█ sshruthi@chromium.org
iclell...@chromium.org
feature-...@grotations.appspotmail.com
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 1
Type: Task



Sign in to add a comment

Origin-Trials process enhancements based on chromepostmortem377

Project Member Reported by sshru...@google.com, Apr 6 2017 
go/chromepostmortem377 for details on crbug.com/702527

Proposals for process enhancements:
1. For any high-impact experiments like the Facebook one in this case, we should insist on testing it out on beta. 
2. For future origin trials, could we add a condition that the partner will have to make a debug environment available for our engineers prior to the start of the experiment so that we can QA?

Comment 1 by cha...@chromium.org, Jun 21 2017

Status: Fixed (was: Untriaged)
I've made updates to the process guidance in various spots. The gist is that feature teams should engage with known external partners, and also monitor signups for large-scale developers (the signup form collects the expected # of page views with the feature). The goal would be to collaborate to ensure testing happens as early as possible.

I don't think it's feasible to require that partners make a debug environment available. That assumes:
a) The partner has such a debug environment
b) The partner is able to give access to the environment (there could be technical, legal, policy, .etc reasons why not)
c) Chrome engineers can run the right tests to uncover issues


Blink OT process:
https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/blink/origin-trials/running-an-origin-trial

Also added notes to the doc explaining the timeline:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttgWkpQUtlJy0Q5HhXdaPKs2DHfITbNwLqtNRxqdKMI/
►

Sign in to add a comment