core(responsive-images): find offscreen images larger than viewport #10506
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
patrickhulce
changed the title
lighthouse-cli/test/smokehouse/test-definitions/byte-efficiency/expectations.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
lighthouse-core/audits/byte-efficiency/uses-responsive-images.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
connorjclark
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2020
|
@exterkamp did you particularly want to review these changes or should I let @connorjclark 's review be sufficient? |
exterkamp
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Currently there's a loophole that super massive images that are also offscreen can bypass the responsive image check. This PR changes the logic in uses-responsive-images to use 2 vertically stacked viewports (to forgive scrollable images) as the maximum potential size the image could have been displayed at instead of ignoring it completely.
Related Issues/PRs
closes #7236