Hello,
Our javascript tests are being run under TestSwarm [1] and we currently cover up most desktop browsers (thanks brion).
According to our squids stats [2], most of Wikimedia mobile traffic comes from the following browsers (sorted by popularity): - Safari - Android - Opera - Mozilla - Blackberry
* Safari, Opera & Mozilla for mobile : they are probably mostly the same as the desktop version. I have not found emulators for them. * Android : has an emulator. On my computer it is painfully slow and not usable for anything. * Blackberry : emulator is Windows only :-/
Would be great to enhance our testswarm with more browsers. Maybe we could contact those mobiles developers to connect to our testswarm?
:-)
[1] http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/testswarm/ [2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
- Blackberry : emulator is Windows only :-/
Would be great to enhance our testswarm with more browsers. Maybe we could contact those mobiles developers to connect to our testswarm?
:-)
I'm grabbing the BB emulator (BlackBerry® Device Simulators v6.0.0.570 (9780)) now.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
- Blackberry : emulator is Windows only :-/
Would be great to enhance our testswarm with more browsers. Maybe we could contact those mobiles developers to connect to our testswarm?
:-)
I'm grabbing the BB emulator (BlackBerry® Device Simulators v6.0.0.570 (9780)) now.
Which is apparently not needed in the tests but I would assume that is BlackBerry 6? which under rarest mobiles has 0 runs.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
Our javascript tests are being run under TestSwarm [1] and we currently cover up most desktop browsers (thanks brion).
Firefox 5 is missing.
Bryan
On 09/07/11 12:07, Bryan Tong Minh wrote: ..
Firefox 5 is missing.
It is bug 29549. Krinkle need to update testswarm regexp for Gecko 5 :)
See: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/29549 and upstream: https://github.com/jquery/testswarm/issues/67
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
Our javascript tests are being run under TestSwarm [1] and we currently cover up most desktop browsers (thanks brion).
According to our squids stats [2], most of Wikimedia mobile traffic comes from the following browsers (sorted by popularity):
- Safari
- Android
- Opera
- Mozilla
- Blackberry
Android platform has others popular browsers like Dolphin, Opera mini and Opera mobile. I think they handle javascript in different ways.
Matias.
On 11-07-09 08:54 AM, Matias wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
Our javascript tests are being run under TestSwarm [1] and we currently cover up most desktop browsers (thanks brion).
According to our squids stats [2], most of Wikimedia mobile traffic comes from the following browsers (sorted by popularity):
- Safari
- Android
- Opera
- Mozilla
- Blackberry
Android platform has others popular browsers like Dolphin, Opera mini and Opera mobile. I think they handle javascript in different ways.
Matias.
Firefox has an Android browser too. Dolphin might work a little like the default browser, but I know them and FF do things differently. I should install Opera to test stuff myself.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
- Android : has an emulator. On my computer it is painfully slow and not
usable for anything.
I've got Android 2.x and 3.x devices at my house. Unfortunately TestSwarm doesn't support the newer webkit builds found in Android 3.1 yet--it tells me it doesn't need my help :(
-Chad
On 09/07/11 18:10, Chad wrote: <snip>
I've got Android 2.x and 3.x devices at my house. Unfortunately TestSwarm doesn't support the newer webkit builds found in Android 3.1 yet--it tells me it doesn't need my help :(
Just like Firefox 5, Krinkle need to update the regex :-)
Also sprach Ashar Voultoiz:
Our javascript tests are being run under TestSwarm [1] and we currently cover up most desktop browsers (thanks brion).
According to our squids stats [2], most of Wikimedia mobile traffic comes from the following browsers (sorted by popularity):
- Safari
- Android
- Opera
- Mozilla
- Blackberry
- Safari, Opera & Mozilla for mobile : they are probably mostly the same
as the desktop version. I have not found emulators for them.
Opera comes in two flavors for mobile devices: Opera Mini and Opera Mobile. Opera Mobile is, indeed, close to the desktop version in the sense that it runs the same display, javascript engine etc. on the device.
Opera Mini runs these engines in server parks in the fixed network and tranfers a binary representation to a small viewer on the device. We currently process around 60 billion pages per month and Wikipedia is typically in the top 10 lists in the top 20 countries we publish statistics for:
http://www.opera.com/smw/2011/05/
In the test swarm link you sent, Opera 10 and 11 are listed, but not Opera Mini (which is currently at version 6). Could it be that your sniffer doesn't pick up Opera Mini users?
http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/testswarm/
Here a sample UA string from a recent version of Opera Mini:
Opera/9.80 (Android; Opera Mini/6.24556/25.657; U; en) Presto/2.5.25 Version/10.54
And here's the Opera Mini emulator:
http://www.opera.com/mobile/demo/
While Wikipedia remains popular with Opera Mini users, there is a technical problem which limits the user experience. Wikipedia uses JavaScript to unfold sections in articles. Alas, executing JavaScript requires a rountrip to the server (the Opera Mini server, that is) which takes time and costs money. It would be better if articles were unfolded by default for Opera Mini users.
We can also provide code to achieve folding/ufolding without server roundtrips (this uses locally executed CSS extenstions instead of JavaScript).
Cheers,
-h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Håkon Wium Lie howcome@opera.com wrote:
Opera comes in two flavors for mobile devices: Opera Mini and Opera Mobile. Opera Mobile is, indeed, close to the desktop version in the sense that it runs the same display, javascript engine etc. on the device.
The versions of Opera Mobile floating in the wild are kinda different. Every HTC HD2 user with Windows Mobile 6.5 is likely to still run the ages-old buggy HTC version (8.x AFAIR, compared to current v10!), as the "official" versions STILL don't support the multi-touch features even though libraries exist which abstract the multi-touch -.-
Marco
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Håkon Wium Lie howcome@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Ashar Voultoiz:
> Our javascript tests are being run under TestSwarm [1] and we currently > cover up most desktop browsers (thanks brion). > > According to our squids stats [2], most of Wikimedia mobile traffic > comes from the following browsers (sorted by popularity): > - Safari > - Android > - Opera > - Mozilla > - Blackberry > > * Safari, Opera & Mozilla for mobile : they are probably mostly the same > as the desktop version. I have not found emulators for them.
Opera comes in two flavors for mobile devices: Opera Mini and Opera Mobile. Opera Mobile is, indeed, close to the desktop version in the sense that it runs the same display, javascript engine etc. on the device.
Opera Mini runs these engines in server parks in the fixed network and tranfers a binary representation to a small viewer on the device. We currently process around 60 billion pages per month and Wikipedia is typically in the top 10 lists in the top 20 countries we publish statistics for:
http://www.opera.com/smw/2011/05/
In the test swarm link you sent, Opera 10 and 11 are listed, but not Opera Mini (which is currently at version 6). Could it be that your sniffer doesn't pick up Opera Mini users?
http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/testswarm/
Here a sample UA string from a recent version of Opera Mini:
Opera/9.80 (Android; Opera Mini/6.24556/25.657; U; en) Presto/2.5.25 Version/10.54
And here's the Opera Mini emulator:
http://www.opera.com/mobile/demo/
While Wikipedia remains popular with Opera Mini users, there is a technical problem which limits the user experience. Wikipedia uses JavaScript to unfold sections in articles. Alas, executing JavaScript requires a rountrip to the server (the Opera Mini server, that is) which takes time and costs money. It would be better if articles were unfolded by default for Opera Mini users.
Open bug already in place .. any takers?
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29517
--tomasz
That would be awesome to get in. I've been meaning to chat with Timo about this. Let me see if there are any others that were seeing.
--tomasz
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
Our javascript tests are being run under TestSwarm [1] and we currently cover up most desktop browsers (thanks brion).
According to our squids stats [2], most of Wikimedia mobile traffic comes from the following browsers (sorted by popularity): - Safari - Android - Opera - Mozilla - Blackberry
- Safari, Opera & Mozilla for mobile : they are probably mostly the same
as the desktop version. I have not found emulators for them.
- Android : has an emulator. On my computer it is painfully slow and not
usable for anything.
- Blackberry : emulator is Windows only :-/
Would be great to enhance our testswarm with more browsers. Maybe we could contact those mobiles developers to connect to our testswarm?
:-)
[1] http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/testswarm/ [2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm
-- Ashar Voultoiz
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
- Safari, Opera & Mozilla for mobile : they are probably mostly the same
as the desktop version. I have not found emulators for them.
- Android : has an emulator. On my computer it is painfully slow and not
usable for anything.
- Blackberry : emulator is Windows only :-/
Would be great to enhance our testswarm with more browsers. Maybe we could contact those mobiles developers to connect to our testswarm?
Note also that there'll be at least three distinct things we want to test on the mobile browsers:
* JS & browser interactive behavior _of MediaWiki_ * JS & browser interactive behavior _of the alternate mobile view_ (MobileFrontend, on track to replace the current mobile. and m. gateways) * default redirection to the appropriate view based on device
For the MediaWiki JS tests on Mobile Safari, Android default browser, Blackberry default browser, Opera Mobile, etc we should only need to add those browsers to the job submissions going into TestSwarm so it'll farm the tests out to any connected clients -- currently Krinkle manages how that's set up.
However for the most part, Mobile Safari, default Android browser, Opera Mobile, and Firefox for Android should work _about the same_ as their desktop equivalents, with the same modern JavaScript engines etc. There will be some differences in JavaScript & HTML support (for instance, the Android browser doesn't support SVG until 3.0) but this is unlikely to trip up much in the core JS tests.
More relevant in most cases will probably be UI tests, like making sure that various links and buttons are in visible, clickable areas of the screen; we don't have any of these tests yet using QUnit.
Anything related to MobileFrontend will need to have a test suite created for it; note that for less-capable devices, TestSwarm's client-side JavaScript system probably won't actually work (certainly it won't for Opera Mini!)
Redirection tests again might need another test harness infrastructure.
-- brion
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
default redirection to the appropriate view based on device
I can tell you right now that Firefox for Android has never redirected to the mobile site for me. If you want more device/version details let me know...
Steven
Firefox is tough as the current version has the exact same UA on mobile phones AND tablets. And since we don't redirect tablets we haven't switched it over yet.
Anyone know why they did that?
--tomasz
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
default redirection to the appropriate view based on device
I can tell you right now that Firefox for Android has never redirected to the mobile site for me. If you want more device/version details let me know...
Steven _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Tomasz Finc tfinc@wikimedia.org wrote:
Firefox is tough as the current version has the exact same UA on mobile phones AND tablets. And since we don't redirect tablets we haven't switched it over yet.
Anyone know why they did that?
Mozilla generally recommends using CSS media queries and other client-side techs for adapting your pages to small or large screened-devices; while this is generally a good idea, it doesn't help directly with an issue like this where we'd really prefer to know a binary "device claiming to have a tiny freaky screen" or "anything else" so we can divide people down the mobile-optimized or regular web site paths. (We need to support older/more primitive phones that don't handle any of this stuff.)
There are a couple closed-with-extreme-prejudice bugzilla entries like this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=625238 https://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/browse_thread/thread/43...
which mostly look like they're about wanting / not wanting whole gobs of device data in the user-agent string.
All *we* really want is "are you a small screen -> include 'Mobile' in the UA" or "otherwise -> don't include 'Mobile' in the UA"... it may or may not be worth seeing if that can get added in as a compatibility thing, however I'm not sure offhand how easy it actually would be to detect whether such a flag should be added or not.
I know that iOS has an explicit way to find out whether the app is running in the phone-style UI (iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPhone-targeted apps running on iPad in compat mode) or the tablet-style UI (iPad). I don't know if there's an equivalent on Android.
An alternative if that can't be shoehorned in upstream is to do a JavaScript-side check while loading the regular web view; if we're in a browser where CSS media queries detect a tiny mobile screen, and we don't have a redirect preference cookie, then do the redirection after the fact. (And optionally set a default state for the per-browser preference cookie so we only have to do the test once instead of every visit?)
-- brion
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Tomasz Finc tfinc@wikimedia.org wrote:
Firefox is tough as the current version has the exact same UA on mobile phones AND tablets. And since we don't redirect tablets we haven't switched it over yet.
Anyone know why they did that?
Mozilla generally recommends using CSS media queries and other client-side techs for adapting your pages to small or large screened-devices; while this is generally a good idea, it doesn't help directly with an issue like this where we'd really prefer to know a binary "device claiming to have a tiny freaky screen" or "anything else" so we can divide people down the mobile-optimized or regular web site paths. (We need to support older/more primitive phones that don't handle any of this stuff.)
There are a couple closed-with-extreme-prejudice bugzilla entries like this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=625238 https://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/browse_thread/thread/43...
which mostly look like they're about wanting / not wanting whole gobs of device data in the user-agent string.
All *we* really want is "are you a small screen -> include 'Mobile' in the UA" or "otherwise -> don't include 'Mobile' in the UA"... it may or may not be worth seeing if that can get added in as a compatibility thing, however I'm not sure offhand how easy it actually would be to detect whether such a flag should be added or not.
I know that iOS has an explicit way to find out whether the app is running in the phone-style UI (iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPhone-targeted apps running on iPad in compat mode) or the tablet-style UI (iPad). I don't know if there's an equivalent on Android.
An alternative if that can't be shoehorned in upstream is to do a JavaScript-side check while loading the regular web view; if we're in a browser where CSS media queries detect a tiny mobile screen, and we don't have a redirect preference cookie, then do the redirection after the fact. (And optionally set a default state for the per-browser preference cookie so we only have to do the test once instead of every visit?)
I like this idea and think that we could implement it well. Also, this seems like it would be a good solution moving forward. As, it would just continue to work without the need to constantly update UA detection, etc.
-- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com
- default redirection to the appropriate view based on device
Please remember that some people with high-function browsers *want* the low-function results... and some people with *what your code thinks are low-function browsers* want the "standard" results; a user-controllable per-browser persistent cookie to override is a very nice touch here.
Cheers, -- jra
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Jay Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com
- default redirection to the appropriate view based on device
Please remember that some people with high-function browsers *want* the low-function results... and some people with *what your code thinks are low-function browsers* want the "standard" results; a user-controllable per-browser persistent cookie to override is a very nice touch here.
That's why there's a per-browser persistent cookie to override it, yes. :)
(Not 100% all pretty yet, but I think it mostly works in the MobileFrontend version now. The live versions still just have the one-time flip-to-desktop & the permanent-disable, which are both annoying limited.)
-- brion
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
- Android : has an emulator. On my computer it is painfully slow and not
usable for anything.
I can connect to TestSwarm with the stock Android browser on 2.3 (though it's identifying it as 2.2) but it won't give me any tests to run.
TestSwarm 'doesn't need my help' when I load it with Fennec 5 or Opera Mobile 11.1.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
TestSwarm 'doesn't need my help' when I load it with Fennec 5 or Opera Mobile 11.1.
Though Opera does allow you to set the UA to mobile or desktop, and it will let me run tests when set to the desktop version.
(Wikipedia doesn't give me the mobile site whatever the UA setting.)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org