Switch performance tests to Playwright #52022
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Size Change: +236 B (0%) Total Size: 1.51 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
Flaky tests detected in 1cf298a. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/5683296273
|
The first character is excluded from the results later on, so let's not double-exclude.
- define fixed time to wait until browser becomes idle instead random values - make each test record 10 samples + 1 throwaway to address initial metric spikes - improve overall code consistency
WunderBart
force-pushed
the
refactor/playwright-performance-tests-p2
branch
from
80b4a7e to
df1216e
Compare
WunderBart
force-pushed
the
refactor/playwright-performance-tests-p2
branch
from
6a56bd6 to
1a18006
Compare
dmsnell
reviewed
Jul 25, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a couple quick questions, but it looks like you've been thorough here. I don't know if there are things otherwise I can review without looking at it in production, but the things are questions about integrating with existing services like the codehealth app, and I think you have taken care of that already.
So, well done.
| await firstParagraph.click(); | ||
| await pageUtils.pressKeys( 'primary+a' ); | ||
| await page.keyboard.press( 'ArrowRight' ); | ||
| await page.keyboard.press( 'Enter' ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume there's a reason these are all gone here, but are we certain they didn't help reset some state which was helpful for the tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason for those changes is to bring consistency in methodology. To make these changes easier to follow, I've made some before and after recordings and put them together in this comment. Hope it helps!
BTW, this test actually needed a small tweak that I pushed here. The change was intended but still not working as expected, so nice catch! 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added a comment in 894896b
|
For further inspection, here's a comparison of before and after the migration + proposed fixes for metric consistency. The most important changes are:
|
kevin940726
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2023
| @@ -66,5 +66,5 @@ export async function visitSiteEditor( | |||
| // TODO: Ideally the content underneath the spinner should be marked inert until it's ready. | |||
| await this.page | |||
| .locator( '.edit-site-canvas-spinner' ) | |||
| .waitFor( { state: 'hidden' } ); | |||
| .waitFor( { state: 'hidden', timeout: 60_000 } ); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need this here? If it applies to all the tests then maybe we should add a comment above explaining why 😅 .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was needed because, for performance tests, we load an enormous post fixture to test against, which often takes more than the default 10 seconds to load.
I'm not sure the rationale for using a post big enough to freeze the browser for a bit, but it's probably something to be discussed in a separate PR? /cc @youknowriad
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when I've tested with the large post in my browser it opens reasonably fast, but if I open the profiling tools I've seen it freeze for more than a minute.
I'm inferring that Chrome is spending a lot of time instrumenting the thousands of listeners and hooks when we turn of tracing, which probably happens here as well.
so this may not be realistic from a user perspective, but the wait may still occur when testing and profiling
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, profiling adds a lot of overhead. We could assume that the overhead added shares averagely across all code and can be seen as a fair emulated slowdown of the CPU, but I don't know if that's true 😅 .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's weird. I don't understand it, but it doesn't seem to appear in the metrics. I suspect that the profiling mechanisms don't start until after this initialization. the page isn't interactive while it's starting up, but then once it finishes things are suddenly fast and fine.
so it may not be the case that Chrome reports this big delay, but it still delays the tests. based on some recent profiling work I'm wondering if we might have code paths that are to blame. there are so many listeners involved and it doesn't seem reasonable that we should have so many. maybe Chrome's profiler simply chokes at tens of thousands of listeners (or maybe this is a normal number 🤷♂️ I really don't know).
| getTraceFilePath, | ||
| getTypingEventDurations, | ||
| getLoadingDurations, | ||
| loadBlocksFromHtml, | ||
| } = require( '../utils' ); | ||
|
|
||
| const BROWSER_IDLE_WAIT = 1000; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's move this to an inline comment?
| import { existsSync, readFileSync, unlinkSync } from 'fs'; | ||
|
|
||
| export function sum( array ) { | ||
| if ( ! array || ! array.length ) return undefined; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: For testing I think it might be better to just throw an error if we're passing unexpected arguments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the error throwing should happen one step earlier (where we collect results data, for example, via expect()). Before that, though, I wanted to migrate the tests to TypeScript (in a separate PR) to get a better feel for how to handle exceptions.
For these calc functions (sum, median, average, etc.) I think it's OK not to throw, but it's still important to stay consistent in how we handle invalid arguments (return undefined). Having said that, I'm aware this implementation is not super-defensive, but I don't think it's necessary at this point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we were using TypeScript, we wouldn't have to guard the inputs during runtime since the error would be caught statically. 👍
swissspidy
reviewed
Aug 14, 2023
Each test is run with a fresh context by default, so we can just set the storageState via test.use instead.
WunderBart
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2023
This reverts commit 86ed1e0.
WunderBart
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2023
WunderBart
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2023
This reverts commit 5014a65.
WunderBart
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2023
AKA Revert "Revert "Switch performance tests to Playwright (#52022)""
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What?
A follow-up to #51084
Closes #51383
Closes #51379
This PR effectively switches our performance tests to be handled by Playwright. Apart from that, the following improvements have been made:
ℹ️ The codevitals app requires no update as the test results will be produced and uploaded as expected.
I ran a couple of comparisons of this branch vs. the base branch (round 1, 2 and 3). The results seem stable and should not disrupt the current codevitals logs:
Why?
As a part of the Playwright migration task, but also to improve the overall experience and quality of our performance metrics.
Testing Instructions
To run performance tests locally, the command remains unchanged, e.g.:
You should see different reporter output though, as it was updated to be consistent with the format we use in CI. Also, missing front-end perf results have been added:
To run branch performance comparison tests locally (via the CLI tool), the command also remains unchanged as well as the output, e.g.:
You can check the performance GH action output for this PR to verify the above as well.