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

report: render LH-only diagnostics alongside insights #16332

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

adamraine
Copy link
Member

@adamraine adamraine commented Feb 11, 2025

b/393415599

Some LH perf diagnostics (e.g. bfcache) will continue to live as LH-only audits even after we reconcile most performance audits with RPP. We will need to render these LH-only audits alongside the new RPP insights.

This PR introduces a replacesAudits structure to the Audit meta & the LHR which defines the list of audits that have been replaced by RPP insights. As we introduce more insights, the # of replaced audits will grow. The # of non-replaced audits should eventually shrink to cover just the old audits we intend to keep in LH long-term.

Sample: https://lighthouse-k6ds89i6b-googlechrome.vercel.app/sample-reports/english/

@@ -76,4 +76,6 @@ export interface Result {
};
/** A number indicating how much guidance Lighthouse provides to solve the problem in this audit on a 1-3 scale. Higher means more guidance. */
guidanceLevel?: number;
/** A list of audit ids that this audit replaces. Used to ensure the report does not render the audits in this list at the same time as the audit which contains the list. */
replacesAudits?: string[];
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was proposed by go/lh-rpp-roadmap to document the replaced audits for JSON users.

Also seems like a good way to define which old audits need to stick around in the new insight view. We could organize audits into new groups, but since this is an experimental UI phase I would rather not mess with the groups if possible.

@adamraine adamraine marked this pull request as ready for review February 13, 2025 22:35
@adamraine adamraine requested a review from a team as a code owner February 13, 2025 22:35
@adamraine adamraine requested review from connorjclark and removed request for a team February 13, 2025 22:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant