Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Create a Performance audit for avoiding the unload event
See original GitHub issueFeature request summary
Warn web developers that they should avoid unload events and use visibilitychange instead.
I am willing to work on this. Seems like a relatively easy audit to implement.
What is the motivation or use case for changing this?
https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/07/page-lifecycle-api#legacy-lifecycle-apis-to-avoid
How is this beneficial to Lighthouse?
It’s an easy-to-detect change that could help improve the reliability and performance of websites.
P.S. How is this beneficial to Lighthouse? is a strange phrasing. Seems like it should be How is this beneficial to the web?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Reactions:1
- Comments:6 (3 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
@kaycebasques - Thanks for implementing this audit. Most of our sites are being flagged now by this audit. In our cases, these unload events are coming from third party scripts (like bot detection / marketing etc). For example, In screenshot attached, we see it coming from PerimeterX (Bot Detection) / Facebook / Dynatrace (RUM)
In this case, does it really impact backward/forward cache OR this audit should be more about unload events from first party scripts… ? Sorry… I am not very familiar with this but this got my attention when I was going through latest lighthouse audits.
@philipwalton / @addyosmani
@rockeynebhwani they may confirm but AFAIK the origin of the script that installed a listener has absolutely no impact on whether the page is eligible for bfcache (and I would be shocked if this were the case).