misc(lantern-collect): rebaseline to include new ttfb metric #15069
Conversation
| @@ -1,81 +1,81 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "sites": [ | |||
| {"url": "http://m.iciba.com", "roughEstimateOfFCP": 1743, "optimisticFCP": 1743, "pessimisticFCP": 1743, "roughEstimateOfFMP": 1743, "optimisticFMP": 1743, "pessimisticFMP": 1743, "roughEstimateOfTTI": 7517, "optimisticTTI": 3337, "pessimisticTTI": 11697, "roughEstimateOfSI": 9842, "optimisticSI": 4764, "pessimisticSI": 5264, "roughEstimateOfLCP": 9781, "optimisticLCP": 9341, "pessimisticLCP": 10222}, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did this PR because I noticed a delta in this file when running node core/scripts/lantern/update-baseline-lantern-values.js. It was simply the new TTFB metric being added (nothing else changed, as expected). The other metrics do not show up yet because the necessary data in the trace is missing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm why is TTFB added but not LCP load start/end? I would imagine that none of the sites had a baseline TTFB before now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's likely no DOMNodeId in these old traces, so LCPImageRecord will fail to determine load start/end.
ttfb doesn't rely on any new trace stuff. so when the lantern baseline values are updated, all the data is there to compute it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, they don't even have LargestImagePaint::Candidate events :P
| @@ -243,6 +243,11 @@ evaluateAndPrintAccuracy('largestContentfulPaint', 'optimisticLCP'); | |||
| evaluateAndPrintAccuracy('largestContentfulPaint', 'pessimisticLCP'); | |||
| evaluateAndPrintAccuracy('largestContentfulPaint', 'roughEstimateOfLCP'); | |||
|
|
|||
| // TODO: enable when new traces are collected (also, do calls to findAndPrintWorst10Sites) | |||
| // evaluateAndPrintAccuracy('timeToFirstByte', 'roughEstimateOfTTFB'); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
saving future us some time here
follow up to #14941