Enabling by default on Canary and then turning it off right before branch could definitely be a good way to get lab testers that test on Canary be aware of this. At the same time, the release managers may not be excited about it, because it reduces Canary's testing relevance.
Maybe we can settle on having this enabled at the early stages of the Canary milestone, and then revert as we approach Beta? On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 11:49 AM Henrik Boström <h...@chromium.org> wrote: > Ping. Does my proposal to do enabled-by-default (so that testing > environments don't miss this again) prior to having ramped this up to 100% > make sense or is that considered bad practise? > Current status is ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT in M111 (currently Canary), which > would need to be reverted if we either want to delay this to M112 or not do > ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT at all until 100% launch. > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 12:45:20 PM UTC+1 Henrik Boström wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 11:39:36 AM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote: >> Thanks for filing an intent and moving the trial to 0% on stable. >> >> From responses on the other thread, it seems like there may be a few >> months of lag between the time developers notice this upcoming change and >> the time it'd reach users. >> Do you know if a 3P deprecation trial would have better deployment >> latency? >> >> If a 3P deprecation trial still requires the affected websites to get the >> latest version of the affected library in order to get that trial then, if >> I understand correctly, I don't think this will help because it sounds like >> the next version of Twilio will contain the fix for this in which case the >> trial would not be needed. >> >> It sounds like it is just a matter of waiting for updates to be pushed, >> but please correct me if I'm wrong about this +Anna and if a trial would >> help. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:20 AM Henrik Boström <h...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 11:16:59 AM UTC+1 Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> I'm not sure an enterprise policy is appropriate - I see the same problem >> with sunsetting the policy as with sunsetting the stat in general, and >> usage of enterprise policies is (as far as I know) far more opaque to us >> than origin trials or Finch feature usage. >> >> Oh, we definitely don't want that. If a flag is needed (other than the >> Finch one) then I would much rather do a Reverse Origin Trial in that case. >> I still think that has limited value but if that mitigates concerns then >> I'm supportive of it. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:13 AM Henrik Boström <h...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:24:58 PM UTC+1 Johnny Stenback wrote: >> Is there an enterprise policy in place for this deprecation already? If >> not, adding one seems appropriate given the challenges of rolling out even >> simple fixes in some enterprise environments. >> >> One does not exist at the moment but I can add one >> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/enterprise/add_new_policy.md> >> . >> >> >> Thanks, >> Johnny >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:16 AM Henrik Boström <h...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Delaying the enabled-by-default to M112 is fine by me but I'll wait for a >> resolution here before taking action. Currently it is enabled-by-default in >> Canary. >> >> On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 12:41:23 PM UTC+1 >> philipp...@googlemail.com wrote: >> Am Fr., 27. Jan. 2023 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Henrik Boström < >> h...@chromium.org>: >> *Contact emails* >> h...@chromium.org, h...@chromium.org >> >> *Background* >> I attempted to remove this feature before but had forgotten to file an >> intent to deprecate, background here >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/RsIktnGhHqw/>. >> >> *Specification* >> The getStats() API spec is here <https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-stats/> and >> it contains all the metrics. The deprecated metrics are also listed, but in >> the obsolete section >> <https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-stats/#obsolete-rtcmediastreamtrackstats-members>. >> There's an open issue to remove obsolete metrics from the spec as soon as >> they are unshipped from modern browsers. This is considered a blocker for >> the document to reach Proposed Recommendation status. >> >> *Summary* >> WebRTC is a set of JavaScript APIs (spec >> <https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/>) that allow real-time communication >> between browsers. For the relevant metrics being removed, we're only >> talking about the WebRTC use case that is sending or receiving audio or >> video (typically Video Conferencing use cases), not the data channel use >> cases that is a popular WebRTC use case, since data channel only use cases >> would never have any tracks/streams. >> >> RTCPeerConnection.getStats() returns a map of string-to-objects, where >> each object is one of the dictionaries defined in the stats spec. The >> reason an app calls getStats() is mostly to report quality metrics (send >> and receive resolutions, bitrates, glitches, video QP, etc) which can be >> important for A/B experimentation. It can also be used in a way that >> impacts app logic or even UX inside the app. Most common use case I can >> think of: poll getStats() at 10 Hz and render volume bars for each >> participant based on volume levels from stats objects. >> >> The deprecation in question is to remove some stats objects that were >> made obsolete several years ago: all metrics on the "track" dictionary have >> been moved to non-obsolete objects ("inbound-rtp", "outbound-rtp", >> "media-source"). Reasons for wanting to deprecate include: >> >> - Spec-compliance: needed for browser implementations to align and >> for the spec to become Proposed Recommendation. >> - Web compat: Firefox never implement "track" or "steam" >> >> <https://wpt.fyi/results/webrtc-stats/supported-stats.https.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned> >> due >> to them being obsolete. >> - Performance: the duplicated metrics make up ~40% of the stats >> report size, which can be a significant number of bytes in larger meetings >> and it is common for apps to poll getStats() 10 times per second. >> - Tech debt: unblock removal of 1400 LOC. >> >> In the meantime, the obsolete metrics is duplicated in several places of >> the stats report. >> >> *Risks* >> *- Impossible to properly measure usage* >> Because stats objects are exposed as JavaScript dictionaries, and because >> apps have to iterate all objects of the stats report in order to find the >> ones they are interested in or if they just dump all the data without >> filtering, there is no way to measure how big the dependency is on track in >> the real world. >> >> While we lack use counters, we have some positive signs: >> >> - Because Firefox does not have "track" or "stream" stats, any app >> that can run on Firefox already exercises the paths of these not existing. >> >> >> - An experiment to "unship deprecated metrics" has been running at 50% >> Canary since October >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/RsIktnGhHqw/m/3iqjODsMBwAJ>, >> giving developers testing Canary a heads-up. Nobody complained until the >> experiment reached Stable. >> - We got to 50% Stable in M109 and while we're in the process of >> rolling it back now due to breaking twilio-video.js >> <https://github.com/twilio/twilio-video.js/issues/1968>, it's >> interesting to note that this is the only breakage we are aware of (that >> does not mean there aren't more breakages, but I believe this at least >> says >> something about the severity). >> >> *- Selenium et al typically starts browsers from fresh profiles and hence >> does not know the finch trial seed* >> The most likely explanation for breakage is not testing Canary or test >> environments not having access to Finch experiments. This makes the >> behavior on Stable a surprise. >> >> *- To have a Reverse Origin Trial or not to have a Reverse Origin Trial?* >> Migrating should require so few lines of code (look for stats.type == >> 'inbound-rtp' instead of stats.type == 'track', for example) that it seems >> to be a bigger hurdle for a developer to enroll in the trial than to simply >> fix their code. >> >> *- Compatiblity risk* >> There is one particular metric out of all metrics that, if you run >> Safari, does not exist on "inbound-rtp" yet. This can be a problem, but >> again is probably not a big problem because this particular metric was >> never implemented on Firefox so apps already need to survive without it, >> and it is very easy to write a fallback path for the Safari case: >> >> let trackIdentifer = null; // In Firefox this will never be set >> regardless. >> if (inboundRtp.trackIdentifier) { >> // Spec-compliant browser. >> trackIdentifier = inboundRtp.trackIdentifier; >> } else if (inboundRtp.trackId) { >> // Fallback-path for Safari or 1+ year old Chromium browsers. >> trackIdentifier = report.get(inboundRtp.trackId).trackIdentifier; >> } >> >> *Proposal* >> Rollback to 0% Stable but keep the "unship deprecated" experiment at 50% >> Canary/Beta. Wait for Twilio to fix their issue and do another rollout >> attempt. Keep a slower rollout pace next time. >> >> I see limited amount of value in a Reverse Origin Trial since it appears >> to be more effort to register to the trial than to fix the issue, if you >> are affected. >> >> I do prefer to have the feature enabled-by-default in M111+ and overwrite >> that default via Finch rather than the other way around as to not "turn off >> the fire alarm" for non-Finch testing environments. I realize that is not >> perfect (what if you run in a non-Finch environment) but it would reduce >> overall risk. >> >> Thank you Henrik. I agree with one suggestion: only do default-off in >> M112+ (which is branching so you would just need to revert this commit >> <https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commit/3a4d52f365df03413a856ea20366b36e8fb8ea0b> >> on >> the M111 branch). >> This gives developers another month to update (which itself should be >> quick) and then rolling it out to their customers and users (which takes >> time). >> >> I hope that the 50% rollout caused enough incidents (even though you may >> never hear about some of them) to get the fixes in ASAP. >> >> cheers >> >> Philipp >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ch >> romium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5ecf1ea6-c16c-464a-b529-439e05e >> 4feedn%40chromium.org >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5ecf1ea6-c16c-464a-b529-439e05e4feedn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ch >> romium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6a0b5bb9-addd-4a56-b053-1429bba >> abe2dn%40chromium.org >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6a0b5bb9-addd-4a56-b053-1429bbaabe2dn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfU_1cBHNMipPvrA88zeux1WbxmoKW9FRO8auPxMgJG9zg%40mail.gmail.com.
