-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 185
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 ci action #1401
Lighthouse ci action #1401
Conversation
Thanks @bazzadp for the PR. Excited about LH integration. I'll defer to @ibnesayeed's review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am okay with the other changes except the last one where I think using jq
for building and formatting the config file would be better than manually doing it, which is brittle as it introduces tight coupling between the config file format and the shell script.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
However, I wish there was a way in lighthouse to supply list of URIs separately, without mixing it into the config file. Please see if there are any configuration options that can point to a file for list of URIs. That said, this PR can be merged, and if a better approach is found, we can make necessary changes later.
Fixes #1178
Adds Automatic Lighthouse checks to our Test Website action to test for regressions as good changes.
Note we disable a few checks:
This means we should only get real failures.
I also added a weekly run against production action. This looks at Lighthouse scores - though again not Performance due to variability as really want to avoid introducing noisy checks that create false alerts sometimes.
As well as avoiding #1216 (which is where this whole thing came from!) it's also identified another couple of issues meaning we have less than perfect scores:
I think this shows the value of automating these checks!
Monitoring performance needs some more thought. We could do several runs to average, and set thresholds, or leverage the Page Speed Insights API to get CrUX data or something similar. Anyway think this PR has enough value even without explicit performance monitoring.
Interested to hear your thoughts!