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

Lighthouse reporting numerous failed passive listeners on other hosts #4434

Closed
OdinsHat opened this issue Feb 6, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Comments

@OdinsHat
Copy link

OdinsHat commented Feb 6, 2018

Issue

When testing for passive listeners according to the documentation for Lighthouse on this audit test (point 4 under More Information) all failures from other hosts are ignored. Which makes sense as I can't affect the JS of a 3rd party scripts source.

However on my site that is not the case. They are included and stated as failures bringing the score down.

Example

As an example I've run the report on a page of my clients website and I get failures for issues on 3rd party hosted scripts (Google Maps in this case) which you can see in the screenshot. Something specifically stated shouldn't happen in the docs - see point 4 under More Information.

screenshot from 2018-02-06 14-16-55

If any more information is required please ask.

Operating Environment

Operating Systems Tested: Arch Linux & Windows 10
Browsers Tested: Chrome 64 & Vivaldi 1.13
Lighthouse Version: 2.8.0

@patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for filing @OdinsHat!

The docs are out of date since we have now switched to Chrome's native warnings of passive event listeners which handles things a little differently. We could still add in a same-origin check if we need to, but all recent audits have moved away from this policy. Either way the docs need to be updated.

@laukstein
Copy link

Does Lighthouse fallows the spec proposal WICG/interventions#18 on defaulting touch passive listener?

Chrome 56 and Firefox 61 expecting already to fallow this spec.

@paulirish
Copy link
Member

@laukstein yup we do

duping this into #4516

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants