Deferred fetching #1647

noamr · 2023-05-02T12:27:48Z

Add a JS-exposed function to request a deferred fetch.

A deferred fetch would be invoked in one of two scenarios:

The document is destroyed (the fetch group is terminated)
The document is backgrounded (the fetch group is deactivated) and not restored after a certain time.

A few constraints:

Deferred fetch body sizes are limited to 64KB per origin. Exceeding this would immediately reject with a QuotaExceeded.
Request body streams are not allowed. A request body, if exists, has to be a byte sequence.

The JS function is called requestDeferredFetch but that's bikesheddable.

See WICG/pending-beacon#70

At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):
- …
- …
Tests are written and can be reviewed and commented upon at:
- …
Implementation bugs are filed:
- Chromium: …
- Gecko: …
- WebKit: …
- Deno (not for CORS changes): …
MDN issue is filed: …

(See WHATWG Working Mode: Changes for more details.)

Preview | Diff

annevk

"inactive timeout" -> "deferred delay". At least that seems clearer to me.
I think fetchLater was quite nice in that it sorts the same as fetch. fetchDeferred could also work, though is a bit harder to spell. I don't think we need request in the name.
It's not clear how the name fetch group states get activated. That needs some kind of additional PR against HTML I suppose?
I think we should describe the API in the same section as the fetch method. Could be called "Fetch methods" then.
Deferred fetching itself could then precede the "Fetch API" section. Maybe it could even be a subsection of "Fetching" though I don't mind a new top-level section.

fetch.bs

annevk · 2023-05-08T10:36:00Z

fetch.bs

+<pre class=idl>
+
+dictionary DeferredRequestInit : RequestInit {
+  DOMHighResTimeStamp? inactiveTimeout;


No need for this to be both nullable and optional.

noamr · 2023-05-08T10:54:30Z

"inactive timeout" -> "deferred delay". At least that seems clearer to me.

But this is deferred delay specifically in the case of inactivity. "inactivity deferred delay"?

I think fetchLater was quite nice in that it sorts the same as fetch. fetchDeferred could also work, though is a bit harder to spell. I don't think we need request in the name.

I was thinking about "what are we doing right now?" which is requesting/scheduling a deferred fetch for later. But fetchLater is also fine with me, it's very easy to remember.

It's not clear how the name fetch group states get activated. That needs some kind of additional PR against HTML I suppose?

Yes, HTML would activate/deactivate in the BFCache code path. Need to prepare a PR for that but wanted to see that I'm on the right track first.

I think we should describe the API in the same section as the fetch method. Could be called "Fetch methods" then.

Will do

Deferred fetching itself could then precede the "Fetch API" section. Maybe it could even be a subsection of "Fetching" though I don't mind a new top-level section.

OK

mingyc · 2023-05-09T06:06:19Z

cc @mingyc @fergald @yoavweiss @clelland latest API shape proposal for PendingBeacon

mingyc · 2023-05-16T16:15:25Z

fetch.bs

+<pre class=idl>
+
+dictionary DeferredRequestInit : RequestInit {
+  DOMHighResTimeStamp backgroundTimeout;


Per reason discussions with our OT users, it looks like there is also some need for pageHideTimeout in addition to backgroundTimeout. Should we consider replace this with a general timeout which kicks off after calling fetchLater(), and let user freely decide whichever event to with it with?

what's the difference? Just a general visibility change, like minimizing the window? They can implement it themselves because the JS in the page is still alive

This is tricky because the page may be frozen after visibilitychange and no JS timers will fire I think there is a footgun here. Browsers may suspend JS timers after visibilitychange. Explicitly, this happens on the freeze event but I suspect it might happen at other times too (freeze is experimental and not available in WebKit or Mozilla, I think).

So that makes it maybe impossible reliably implement send-after-hidden (if some browsers stop timers). Even in those that send a freeze event before stopping timers, it's complex to get correct, you need to

set a timer

listen to freeze

if either happens, send the beacon immediately and prevent the other event handler from doing so. E.g.

So we may need to give users a way to set a timeout after hidden. Maybe a way to say "timeout after JS timers become unreliable" covers this and BFCache?

Yea I think this would be the same background timeout (we can find a different name for it).
We can say in the HTML spec, that if the page frozen due to visibility change, start the inactive timer for the fetch group (this doesn't affect this PR!)

@noamr @fergald A followup question to the definition of our fetchGroup's deactivated state:

In addition to the freeze Page LifeCycle event, should it also include pause event or not?

Per https://html.spec.whatwg.org/C/#pause, no loads are allowed to start/continue in this state, and all background processing is also paused: ... require the user agent to pause while running a task until a condition goal is met

I would assume the answer is no, but would like to confirm.

This is unfortunate but it seems like we should not send while paused or we risk breaking code like

if (!fetchLaterResult.activated) { ... abortController.abort(); ... }

So there's not much point in starting a timer on pause. I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot either way. If a page cares about the time the beacon was sent, it will have its own timer running in JS. Either our timer sends it or their timer sends it.

Pausing is not related to deactivation. The main thread is paused when doing things like fetching module scripts or alert(). As far as we're concerned the page is active during pause.

mingyc · 2023-05-16T16:15:30Z

fetch.bs

@@ -2690,16 +2693,104 @@ functionality.
 <dfn export for="fetch record" id=concept-fetch-record-fetch>controller</dfn> (a
 <a for=/>fetch controller</a> or null).

+<p>A <dfn export>deferred fetch record</dfn> is a <a for=/>struct</a> used to maintain state needed
+to invoke a fetch at a later time, e.g., when a <code>Document</code> is unloaded or backgrounded. It


Is this equivalent to being bfcached? (Sorry not sure if this is the standard term of it)

Yea, it's when it's BFCached

Maybe refer to BFCache's spec and replace backgrounded with the term non-fully active?

After a user navigates away from a document, the document might be cached in a non-fully active state

also

NOTE: It is possible for a document to become non-fully active for other reasons not related to BFcaching ...

mingyc · 2023-05-16T16:21:32Z

Deferred fetch body sizes are limited to 64KB per origin. Exceeding this would immediately reject with a QuotaExceeded.

Another note about "origin" of a beacon request: there were some previous discussion about using 3P storage partitioning key (not origin, which is stricter) to decide whether pending beacon requests in a page are sendable or not in terms of privacy concern, see WICG/pending-beacon#30 (comment) and comments there below. I am not sure how this should be spec.

noamr · 2023-05-16T17:09:00Z

Deferred fetch body sizes are limited to 64KB per origin. Exceeding this would immediately reject with a QuotaExceeded.

Another note about "origin" of a beacon request: there were some previous discussion about using 3P storage partitioning key (not origin, which is stricter) to decide whether pending beacon requests in a page are sendable or not in terms of privacy concern, see WICG/pending-beacon#30 (comment) and comments there below. I am not sure how this should be spec.

OK, perhaps the 64kb constraint can be per network partition key rather than origin.

fetch.bs

fergald · 2023-05-18T07:14:57Z

fetch.bs

+};
+
+partial interface mixin WindowOrWorkerGlobalScope {
+  [NewObject] Promise&lt;Response> fetchLater(RequestInfo input, optional DeferredRequestInit init = {});


I think the Promise model has an unavoidable race caused by getting JS involved in delivering this state change information.

Here's the most direct way I can think of to trigger the issue

let completed = false; fetchLater(...).then(() => {completed = true}); addEventListener("pagehide", () => { // This task will run first-thing after `pageshow` setTimeout(() => { if (!completed) { doSomething(); } }, 0); });

Now let's say the fetch occurs while in BFCache. The first task to run on restore from BFCache will see complete as still false and will call doSomething incorrectly.

Even if we somehow make the tasks that run the promise resolves special so that they run first, you can recreate the same problem using 2 fetchLaters. One of the resolve callbacks must run first and would see the wrong value for the completed of the other fetch.

It might also be that any pageshow event handler will run before these callbacks. I can't find a clear answer to that. Document reactivation is here but I'm not sure where the task queue is unfrozen.

This race was avoided in the original design because isPending() had access to the true state. It was all handled in native code which is allowed to execute while in BFCache - the timer expires, the renderer tells the browser to send and updates the pending state.

I think the only way to avoid this issue is to have an object that gives access to the state and update that object outside of JS.

The task that resolves the promise (call fetch group's activate) should be called when reactivating the document, before suspended timers are resumed and before pageshow. Both of these are done in specified location so there shouldn't be a race. The race here is perhaps created because of the Userland JS implemetation of pending beacon, it can be solved in user-land in the same way that this kind of race can be avoided with regular fetches.

Saying that we will run these tasks before everything else is concerning. Up until now, no JS runs between pagehide and visibilitychanged (surprisiglyvisibilitychanged fires before pagehide and before pageshow). Giving these promise resolutions special priority doesn't seem right. What if another feature also requires special priority to run before veverything else?

It also doesn't solve the problem when there are 2+ of them. I would hope that people don't put complex code into these resolve callbacks such that it might look at another pending fetch but any amount of work, including updating logged data, can be hidden behind some framework's function call.

Hmm I see your point. @annevk how would you feel about having the signature be DeferredFetchResult fetchLater(...), where DeferredFetchResult has a { sent: false } that turns to true synchronously at the appropriate moment? (BFCache restore after send / re-show after timers frozen)

friendly ping @annevk

@annevk my current thinking about it is that when the timeout passes, we post a task to invoke the fetch to the document's event loop, without associating the task with the document. When that task is handled, we only flip the boolean and perform fetch if the document is not fully active. This ensures that the fetch/sent-state nevev races with document activation.

I don't think we have precedent for tasks that are not associated with a document.

Hmm you're right, it would also be racy if the reactivate task is already queued. So we need an atomic exchange thingy, something like:
Let sentState be "deferred", "scheduled", or "sent", initially "deferred".

When deactivating (in document event loop, after pagehide):

Set sentState to "scheduled".

In parallel:

Wait backgroundTimeout millis

Let currentState be the result of atomically exchanging sentState with "sent"

If currentState is scheduled, then fetch etc.

When reactivating (in document event loop, before pageshow):

Let currentState be the result of atomically exchanging sentState with "deferred"

Let fetchLater's sent be true if currentState is "sent", otherwise false.

See new revision.

@AnneV

I think we should match optional arguments where the boolean is always supposed to default to false.

I agree with this as a principle however I think we're talking about a field in a returned struct, not an optional argument. It's an initial value not a default value. So we don't need to favour false.

mingyc

PTAL, added some more comments.

fetch.bs

mingyc · 2023-06-02T05:02:47Z

fetch.bs

+ <a for=body>length</a>.
+
+ <li><p>If <var>totalScheduledDeferredBytesForOrigin</var> is greater than 64 kilobytes, then
+ throw a {{QuotaExceededError}}.


If the discussion at #1647 (comment) is resolved and the API shape is changed to return a DeferredFetchResult instead of Promise, should we consider to return null here in addition to throw an error?

There's no return value when you throw.

I understand that the body length case needs to fail but I thought we were going to flush the existing entries in this case. Why are we throwing in that case?

We've discussed this. The body-length case has a per-target-origin quota, It's up to userland to flush if it's reached, same as with keepalive.

We have a issue (WICG/pending-beacon#76) tracking this topic, and I don't remember about the decision to hand flushing off to userland implementation.

Also, I thought the quota of keepalive is specified by spec, and implemented by UA (not userland JS code)?

All requests with this flag set share the same in-flight quota restrictions that is enforced within the Fetch API.

@mingyc anything else here or can we resolve this?

Thanks for explaining. I added some more questions below

in request’s client ’s fetch group ’s deferred fetch records : ...
if deferredRecord’s request ’s body is not null and deferredRecord’s request ’s URL ’s origin is same origin with request’s URL ’s origin ...
If totalScheduledDeferredBytesForOrigin is greater than 64 kilobytes, then throw a QuotaExceededError .

It means totalScheduledDeferredBytesForOrigin only accumulates request lenth from same-origin deferred fetch within the same fetch group (e.g. same Document).

You mentioned that the quota is per-target-origin quota, how will this work with records from different fetch group?

each origin manages its own and autoflushes is not specified in above. As Fergal mentioned, it would be difficult for userland code to track request size and flush by themselves. Could we specify auto flushes in FIFO order?

per-target-origin-in-document (a fetch group is a document)

Autoflushing would require rewriting this whole thing as suddenly you could have committed in a live document. I don't see why tit would be difficult to do this in userland. You can catch QuotaExceededError from fetchLater and perform a regular fetch.

The discussions about Promise/autoflushes are resolved.

However, some questions on quota are not yet:

Regarding keepalive, I think this should be a bit different (also chatted about this with @yoavweiss):
Keepalive and fetchLater are mutually exclusive and so are there quotas.

Keepalive quota is global, fetchLater quota is per origin
Keepalive is for requests that dispatch immediately
Keepalive survives termination, fetchLater (usually) invokes at termination

So I think the solution would be that deferred fetches are not keepalive, and instead, they're simply not terminated when the fetch group is terminated,

@noamr We now have fetchLater-specific quota steps, but fetchLater requests are also set keepalive true. Should fetchLater requests share the quota of non-FetchLater keepalive requests, i.e. should the former also be run through the same inflight keepalive checks?

We've talked about this before in this long issue discussion :)

These request are implicitly keepalive, because they're never registered as fetch records. we don't actually set their keepalive to true in other ways.

There is no point in sharing the regular keepalive quota. It would mean that origins would fight for that quota, and it is also unnecessary because the UA can simply delay the deferred fetches until all the keepalive fetches are complete. In addition the caller wouldn't receive an error for this which would make fetchLater unreliable.

fetch.bs

mingyc

noamr@ PTAL. I've added some more questions and comments. Really thanks for your help!

fetch.bs

mingyc · 2023-06-29T02:47:51Z

fetch.bs

+
+ <li><p><a for=list>For each</a> <a for="fetch group">deferred fetch record</a>
+ <var>deferredRecord</var> in <var>fetchGroup</var>'s
+ <a for="fetch group">deferred fetch records</a>: If the result of atomically exchanging the value


If the result of atomically exchanging the value of deferredRecord's invoke state with
"terminated" is not "sent"

Could you please help me understand what does atomically exchanging the value of deferredRecord' invoke state with terminated, does it mean the result of calling request a deferred fetch or simply setting deferredRecord.invokeState to something? What is the subject the deferredRecord is exchanging invoke state with?

It means "atomically exchanging", as in std::exchange - you set a new value and return the previous one in a way that guarantees that nothing can happen in between. I added a comment to the dfn if invokeState to clarify.

So does that just mean atomically updating invokeState to terminated?

... atomically updating invokeState to terminated and returning the previous value of invokeState.

Instead of saying "atomically exchanging" we should just have a list of steps. Within the same thread everything always happens in order. (Or if we really need this primitive we should add it to Infra, but I don't think we do.)

This is bit tricky. This is fundamentally multi-threaded in that there is the document's thread but we sometimes want the request to be triggered from outside of that (and in some cases while the document's event loop is paused).

Is it possible to spec it so that the document is authoritative for the state of the request and that any other thread can post a request to the document's thread to try update it? This is Chrome's implementation and it's unclear that we want to constrain the implementation to match. It's also unclear to me how the document's thread can handle such a request if its event loop is paused. I guess it could be a different event loop that does not get paused. Maybe we can start off being more proscriptive and if someone ever wants to make an implementation that works differently but achieves the same results, we could reword it to be more flexible.

Instead of saying "atomically exchanging" we should just have a list of steps. Within the same thread everything always happens in order. (Or if we really need this primitive we should add it to Infra, but I don't think we do.)

Yea I don't get how this can be done without either atomically exchanging or running a task on a paused document's event queue which was in a previous revision of this PR. I don't mind going in either direction (adding atomic exchanges to infra or adding some kind of way to run tasks on a paused document) but seems like @annevk has another alternative in mind?

fetch.bs

mingyc · 2023-06-29T03:01:26Z

fetch.bs

+<a for=list>For each</a> <a for=/>deferred fetch record</a> <var>deferredRecord</var> in
+<var>fetchGroup</var>'s <a for="fetch group">deferred fetch records</a>: If the result of atomically
+exchanging the value of <var>deferredRecord</var>'s <a for="deferred fetch record">invoke state</a>
+with "<code>deferred</code>" is "<code>sent</code>", then <a for=list>remove</a>


When a fetch group fetchGroup is reactivated: If the result of atomically exchanging the value of deferredRecord's invoke state with "deferred" is "sent", then remove deferredRecord from fetchGroup's deferred fetch records and set deferredRecord's sent to true.

Assuming reactivated means going out of bfcache (background to foreground): I feel that sent (or committed) deferredRecord should not be remove here. Can't this also be done in deactivated just following after the step that performs fetching the request?

To add more, I think this API's behavior is send (commit) & forget. If a document may be kept in bfcache for an uncertain amount of time thus may not become reactivated. If a deferredRecord is already sent when deactivated, isn't it better to just drop it?

Doing it anywhere else would be racy. Apart from invokeState, the list of deferred fetch records should not be accessed in parallel, as in, should only be accessed from the main thread.
If we did this in deactivated, there would be a short window where the fetch record is still in the list even though it's committed, which means it would, for example, affect the deferred fetch quota.

Do you see any problem with doing this here?

If we did this in deactivated, there would be a short window where the fetch record is still in the list even though it's committed, which means it would, for example, affect the deferred fetch quota.

Could you please help me understand why removing record in deactivated will still affect the quota? Couldn't totalScheduledDeferredBytesForOrigin also be updated in deactivated?

I am fine with the current approach if updating introduces unexpected behaviors. The fact that script cannot be executed in between (bfcached document) makes moving this step into deactivated help nothing in terms of quota.

mingyc · 2023-06-29T03:20:12Z

fetch.bs

+ <a for=body>length</a>.
+
+ <li><p>If <var>totalScheduledDeferredBytesForOrigin</var> is greater than 64 kilobytes, then
+ throw a {{QuotaExceededError}}.


Thanks for explaining. I added some more questions below

in request’s client ’s fetch group ’s deferred fetch records : ...
if deferredRecord’s request ’s body is not null and deferredRecord’s request ’s URL ’s origin is same origin with request’s URL ’s origin ...
If totalScheduledDeferredBytesForOrigin is greater than 64 kilobytes, then throw a QuotaExceededError .

It means totalScheduledDeferredBytesForOrigin only accumulates request lenth from same-origin deferred fetch within the same fetch group (e.g. same Document).

You mentioned that the quota is per-target-origin quota, how will this work with records from different fetch group?

each origin manages its own and autoflushes is not specified in above. As Fergal mentioned, it would be difficult for userland code to track request size and flush by themselves. Could we specify auto flushes in FIFO order?

fetch.bs

mingyc

Thank you noamr@! I've added some last comments. And also added the missing features from the original proposal belows. Please let us know if they are suitable here.

It is suggested to allow only secure requests for new API in Do we want to enforce HTTPS request? WICG/pending-beacon#27. Should we enforce HTTPS-only requests on fetchLater()?
Should this spec mention [Permission Policy]https://www.w3.org/TR/permissions-policy/? In [Fetch-Based API] Permissions Policy WICG/pending-beacon#77, the suggestion is to allow the API by default. But we might want to provide a way to manage 3rd party iframe's usage.
Consider to support retry mechanism WICG/pending-beacon#40 Should this spec mention retry when fetchLater() fails to send/commit?
The original PendingBeacon proposal also includes Crash recovery WICG/pending-beacon#34, not sure how it can be incorporated into fetch spec.

fetch.bs

This PR adds overview and example codes for the draft `fetchLater()` API spec from whatwg/fetch#1647 The API will address the discussions in #70 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76.

noamr · 2023-07-04T11:08:56Z

Thank you noamr@! I've added some last comments. And also added the missing features from the original proposal belows. Please let us know if they are suitable here.

It is suggested to allow only secure requests for new API in Do we want to enforce HTTPS request? WICG/pending-beacon#27. Should we enforce HTTPS-only requests on fetchLater()?

Probably a good idea, from the point of view of enabling new features only for secure requests.

Should this spec mention [Permission Policy]https://www.w3.org/TR/permissions-policy/? In [Fetch-Based API] Permissions Policy WICG/pending-beacon#77, the suggestion is to allow the API by default. But we might want to provide a way to manage 3rd party iframe's usage.

I don't think we should integrate with permission policy. But we should allow the user agent to deny a fetchLater and throw an error immediately. I'll add that to the PR.

Consider to support retry mechanism WICG/pending-beacon#40 Should this spec mention retry when fetchLater() fails to send/commit?

Perhaps consider adding this later?

The original PendingBeacon proposal also includes Crash recovery WICG/pending-beacon#34, not sure how it can be incorporated into fetch spec.

I don't think that changes anything in the spec.

mingyc · 2023-07-18T02:49:58Z

Deferred fetch body sizes are limited to 64KB per origin. Exceeding this would immediately reject with a QuotaExceeded.

Another note about "origin" of a beacon request: there were some previous discussion about using 3P storage partitioning key (not origin, which is stricter) to decide whether pending beacon requests in a page are sendable or not in terms of privacy concern, see WICG/pending-beacon#30 (comment) and comments there below. I am not sure how this should be spec.

OK, perhaps the 64kb constraint can be per network partition key rather than origin.

@noamr Following up on the sendable beacon discussion:

As mentioned in WICG/pending-beacon#30 (comment), there were discussions around whether a beacon (or deferred request) should be sent when network changes. I tried to summarize them in [this PR](WICG/pending-beacon@feb3cf9, but basically to process a beacon request when BackgroundSync is off, we need to see if another open document (tab/frame/etc) with the same storage partitioning key as the current document's one, to avoid unexpected sending the request after network changes.

Do you think the above makes sense to be integrated into Fetch spec?

fetch.bs

annevk · 2023-07-25T11:09:11Z

fetch.bs

+
+ <li><p><a for=list>For each</a> <a for="fetch group">deferred fetch record</a>
+ <var>deferredRecord</var> in <var>fetchGroup</var>'s
+ <a for="fetch group">deferred fetch records</a>: If the result of atomically exchanging the value


Instead of saying "atomically exchanging" we should just have a list of steps. Within the same thread everything always happens in order. (Or if we really need this primitive we should add it to Infra, but I don't think we do.)

fetch.bs

Also refer to WICG#3 and whatwg/fetch#1647

Also refer to #3, #30 and whatwg/fetch#1647

- Clarify the conditions under which a deferred fetch should be activated early.

See WICG/pending-beacon#87 (comment)

noamr mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023

Fetch-based design WICG/pending-beacon#70

Open

annevk reviewed May 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

noamr force-pushed the fetch-later branch from 3ded90a to b38eac5 Compare May 8, 2023 11:06

mingyc reviewed May 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

fergald reviewed May 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

mingyc reviewed Jun 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

noamr force-pushed the fetch-later branch from f7dc878 to 142c1a4 Compare June 11, 2023 13:21

fergald reviewed Jun 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

fetch.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fetch.bs Show resolved Hide resolved

annevk mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2023

keepalive requests are terminated when they shouldn't be? #1669

Open

mingyc reviewed Jun 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

mingyc reviewed Jul 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

fetch.bs Show resolved Hide resolved

fetch.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mingyc mentioned this pull request Jul 4, 2023

[explainer] Add explainer for fetchLater() API WICG/pending-beacon#80

Merged

hober mentioned this pull request Jul 17, 2023

Early Design Review: Pending Beacon API w3ctag/design-reviews#776

Closed

This was referenced Jul 18, 2023

fetchLater() API (previously: PendingBeacon API) WebKit/standards-positions#85

Closed

fetchLater() API mozilla/standards-positions#703

Closed

annevk reviewed Jul 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

mingyc added a commit to mingyc/pending-beacon that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2023

[explainer] Add alternative approch discussions to fetchLater

87a5ed3

Also refer to WICG#3 and whatwg/fetch#1647

mingyc mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2023

[explainer] Add alternative approch discussions to fetchLater WICG/pending-beacon#81

Merged

mingyc added a commit to mingyc/pending-beacon that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2023

[explainer] Add alternative approch discussions to fetchLater

752d907

Also refer to WICG#3 and whatwg/fetch#1647

mingyc added a commit to mingyc/pending-beacon that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2023

[explainer] Add alternative approch discussions to fetchLater

9abbe0e

Also refer to WICG#3 and whatwg/fetch#1647

mingyc added a commit to WICG/pending-beacon that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2023

[explainer] Add alternative approch discussions to fetchLater (#81)

f4f4b31

Also refer to #3, #30 and whatwg/fetch#1647

noamr force-pushed the fetch-later branch from 36b1227 to 8047abb Compare August 20, 2023 12:47

noamr added 25 commits October 28, 2024 09:14

nit

0bc5f8f

nit

5be1186

nit

f5c37ff

- Rename activationDeadline to activateAfter

2d9eacf

- Clarify the conditions under which a deferred fetch should be activated early.

Throw a NotAllowedError for 3p envs

ce78183

Add top-level + per-sink quota

41f4477

Check permissions policy

7d14174

Narrow scope to Window

141b262

Remove existing NotAllowedError

da0a8d3

Fix null-body issues

08d46ad

Revise based on nits

e911490

Use correct dfn

08b5d58

Remove spurious whitespace

dee1759

Use $

5e61c12

Use new quota algorithm

b170955

See WICG/pending-beacon#87 (comment)

nits

3c11bc7

Include url+headers in the quota

05c6196

Allow 16kb (UA-specific) even for 3p contexts

fd83c42

Update for new quota policy

097315f

Fix <ol>

da60def

Only decrement for cross-origin

d18ae84

Apply permission policy

7d1804d

nits

871a9a8

refactor

73bbcac

Refactor quota based on new explainer

66d4fc1

noamr force-pushed the fetch-later branch from 22180d6 to 66d4fc1 Compare October 28, 2024 09:36

noamr added 4 commits October 28, 2024 09:48

nits

3bd0646

Clarify permission policy

97141e1

Remove wrong use of reporting origin

579547b

typo

64231ea

Deferred fetching #1647

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Deferred fetching #1647

Conversation

noamr commented May 2, 2023 • edited by pr-preview bot Loading

annevk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noamr commented May 8, 2023 • edited Loading

mingyc commented May 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noamr May 16, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mingyc Jun 29, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mingyc commented May 16, 2023

noamr commented May 16, 2023

fergald May 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noamr Jun 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mingyc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mingyc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noamr Jun 29, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mingyc left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noamr commented Jul 4, 2023

mingyc commented Jul 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noamr commented May 2, 2023 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading

noamr commented May 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

noamr May 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mingyc Jun 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

fergald May 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

noamr Jun 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

noamr Jun 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mingyc left a comment •

edited

Loading