That is the correct path! Updating the docs here: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/website/+/4289233
~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 1:34 PM Mason Freed <mas...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 11:45 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 8:35 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas <r...@igalia.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Are we planning to use deprecation reports (reporting API) for this >>> deprecation? >>> >>> As a side note, I've realized we don't mention that at >>> https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#feature-deprecations >>> We only mention: >>> "At this point, you should also notify developers by adding a >>> deprecation console message, pointing to the updated status entry in the >>> console message." >>> Should we update that? >>> >> >> We definitely should be more specific and point Chromium devs to use >> UseCounter::CountDeprecation >> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/platform/instrumentation/use_counter.h;l=62;drc=d8b8e2c3be40b67606cc52d3dfe90615da6a3d89;bpv=1;bpt=1> >> in >> order to trigger Deprecation Reports. >> +Ari Chivukula <aric...@google.com> - are there further hoops one needs >> to jump through nowadays to ensure the deprecation message is meaningful? >> > > So I'm using Deprecation::CountDeprecation() > <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/dom/element.cc;l=4527;drc=58e20d8340f1d3a32cff1d39c057f587633a9d80>, > which I believe (hope?) hooks into the reporting API. That process is > fairly well documented here > <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/frame/deprecation/README.md>, > so I hope it's the right path to be on. > > Thanks, > Mason > > > > > > >> >>> Cheers, >>> Rego >>> >>> On 21/02/2023 22:36, Mason Freed wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:33 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org >>> > <mailto:yoavwe...@chromium.org>> wrote: >>> > >>> > That uptick may suggest a single large entity that started using >>> > this, and may be easy to move to the new attribute. >>> > Have you tried turning the usecounter into a UKM >>> > < >>> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:components/page_load_metrics/browser/observers/use_counter/ukm_features.cc;l=32?q=usecounter%20ukm&ss=chromium> >>> to try and see where the usage is coming from? >>> > >>> > >>> > Agreed, that uptick is likely a single party. My hope is that it will >>> go >>> > back down as that entity moves to the new attribute. Adding a UKM >>> sounds >>> > like a reasonable idea - I'll do that if I don't see a down-trend in >>> the >>> > usecounter data soon. >>> > >>> > >>> > The other alternative is that some developer documentation is >>> > pointing at the old attribute name. Can you verify that's not the >>> case? >>> > >>> > >>> > Indeed that's very likely. Our own blog post >>> > <https://web.dev/declarative-shadow-dom/> still describes the old >>> > attribute. (I'm working on getting that updated.) >>> > >>> > >>> > Otherwise, we typically prefer to have deprecation messages with >>> > clear milestones for their removal date. It seems to me that a year >>> > may be a lot for this. Would you be comfortable with setting the >>> > removal date for 6 milestones ahead? Maybe the UKM analysis can >>> > change our thinking here? >>> > >>> > >>> > I'm reasonably comfortable with targeting 6 milestones out. That'd be >>> > roughly M118 as the last version that supports the old `shadowroot` >>> > attribute, and M119 as the first that doesn't. And closer to the >>> > deadline we can re-evaluate usage and make sure it's low enough for >>> > comfort. Does that sound reasonable? If so, I'll update the >>> > documentation and console messages accordingly. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Mason >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:38 PM Mason Freed <mas...@chromium.org >>> > <mailto:mas...@chromium.org>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 5:19 PM Jason Robbins >>> > <jrobb...@google.com <mailto:jrobb...@google.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:14:48 PM UTC-8 >>> > yoav...@chromium.org <mailto:yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> > +Jason Robbins - FYI, this didn't make it to the >>> > chromestatus tool. >>> > >>> > I have an idea about what went wrong. >>> > >>> > "Intent to deprecate" is the subject line that is expected >>> > for the first stage in the deprecation process. It was >>> > detected as such, but that stage does not require any >>> > review. Based on this thread and the contents of the >>> > feature entry it looks like the final stage was what needed >>> > to be reviewed. >>> > >>> > >>> > Sorry - this was my fault. The stages of deprecation are kind >>> of >>> > different, and the two options I had for this "deprecation" >>> (not >>> > "removal") were "Draft Ready for Trial email" and "Draft Intent >>> > to Ship email". I chose the latter and renamed the subject line >>> > to "Intent to Deprecate". I hadn't realized we had tooling look >>> > at these emails. I guess the right thing was to choose the >>> > "Ready for Trial" email template, and not change the subject >>> > line. Perhaps a suggestion would be to rename those links or >>> add >>> > help text explaining which one is appropriate at each stage for >>> > a deprecation/removal intent? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Mason >>> > >>> > >>> > The final stage detects an intent email with the subject >>> > line "Intent to ship" or "Intent to remove". The >>> > launching-features page uses "Intent to ship" for the final >>> > stage of a deprecation, and when we generate the email >>> > preview we use that subject line, but I'm guessing that it >>> > sounded wrong so Mason edited it. >>> > >>> > It would probably be better if chromestatus generated a >>> > preview with the subject line "Intent to remove" and we >>> > updated launching-features to use that wording too. I am >>> > tracking the issue here: >>> > >>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard/issues/2749 < >>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard/issues/2749> >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > jason! >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> > <mailto:blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org>. >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> > >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDjxoGAfpfBkPLdKJjGTV2T0bY4jnynhhNnEQ4bK%2BAnxKg%40mail.gmail.com >>> < >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDjxoGAfpfBkPLdKJjGTV2T0bY4jnynhhNnEQ4bK%2BAnxKg%40mail.gmail.com?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/CAM%3DNeDgNj_wUt72ppnFvmcdgNpfK1HDOXg39_Xd6zh-dArb%2Bzw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDgNj_wUt72ppnFvmcdgNpfK1HDOXg39_Xd6zh-dArb%2Bzw%40mail.gmail.com?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/CAGpy5D%2Bk4JESWU%3DOAUzux1f1Ak-7td7hDk%3DsJrTKbaO9rXLHtQ%40mail.gmail.com.
