Promote October CMS and give the community a useful tool by adding the CMS to the Lighthouse tool #4959
Comments
|
@ayumi-cloud since you seem to work with Google a fair amount and probably already have a CLA with them, would you be willing to put together the code for it and post it here for our review and then submit the PR yourself? |
|
@LukeTowers I don't mind doing that for you - I will it it to my to-do list. I was thinking of creating a spreadsheet with the various messages and sending it to you in Slack for review. If you happy with that I will start trying to do the research in the coming days (when I'm free) and try to find plugins and libraries (that are properly maintained to link into the descriptions). |
|
@ayumi-cloud thanks! Probably no need for a spreadsheet, just the JSON in a comment on this issue should be good enough. |
|
This issue will be closed and archived in 3 days, as there has been no activity in the last 30 days. |
|
Such a cool idea! Is there any news? |
|
Haven't heard from @ayumi-cloud for a while, not sure what's up with them. |
|
Ouch. Hope he's (she?) safe and well these challenging days! |
|
I wouldn't mind giving this a try in the future, but it's extremely low priority at the moment. |
|
Again, just my thoughts about that (a thing I may not understand perfectly): Watching at some of the WP error message/link in its stack pack (which is not exhaustive I suppose), what shouldn't be reproduced is the kind of the one for AMP: it definitely promotes a specific plugin. Even if the plugin is great and probably the best one, October shouldn't promote any plugin by any possible way. That said, this feature is a good one. |
|
@ayumi-cloud, welcome back! I believe it would be great not to suggest a specific plugin but saved search results in the marketplace "image optomization" etc. |
|
@ayumi-cloud I would say only first party plugins should be specifically recommended (i.e. RainLab plugins), everything else should be a marketplace search term recommendation. |
|
There's where I wanted to come, of course. Promote third party plugins is not fair for the others concurrent plugins, and in some sort engages the cms responsibility if there is major issue in the plugin. The next time I will make it shorter to not beat around the bush 👍 |
Sorry to hear about your troubles. All the best for a speedy recovery. |
|
@bennothommo thanks for your kind words, wish you all the best. |
|
This issue will be closed and archived in 3 days, as there has been no activity in the last 60 days. |
|
This issue will be closed and archived in 3 days, as there has been no activity in the last 60 days. |
|
Submitted here: Stack pack pr: GoogleChrome/lighthouse-stack-packs#58 Detection pr: johnmichel/Library-Detector-for-Chrome#187 |
|
Both pr's have been merged, Google side!
@LukeTowers Please close this issue now. |
|
Awesome! |
|
Great! Thx, @ayumi-cloud! |
|
Champion the wonderhorse! |
@daftspunk @LukeTowers
Been thinking about this for a while and I contacted Google a few weeks ago. Today they sent me an update saying we can go ahead now.
What I'm talking about is called "Stack Packs" - you can learn more here: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/01/lighthouse-platform-packs
Creating and adding a Lighthouse Stack pack gives the following two advantages:
Gives the October community an extra free tool to test their October websites.
Spreads the word about the October CMS and people will see this CMS listed with the big boys and will then investigate further.
What does a stack pack look like?
How to Contribute
We'd love to accept your contributions to this project to improve how we provide stack-specific guidance in Lighthouse. Please read through the following before contributing however.
Contributor License Agreement
Contributions to this project must be accompanied by a Contributor License
Agreement. You (or your employer) retain the copyright to your contribution;
this simply gives us permission to use and redistribute your contributions as
part of the project. Head over to https://cla.developers.google.com/ to see
your current agreements on file or to sign a new one.
You generally only need to submit a CLA once, so if you've already submitted one
(even if it was for a different project), you probably don't need to do it
again.
Submitting a new stack pack
Want to submit a brand new stack pack? Awesome! In order for a stack pack to be considered however, the following must be met:
If all of these are met, submit a PR for review! Copy the
general.jsonfile into thepacks/directory and change each audit string to a specific recommendation regarding your stack. If you can't provide a recommendation for a particular audit, change it to an empty string. However, you will need to provide at least 6 audit strings as mentioned earlier.Submitting changes to audit strings
Do you notice a specific audit string for a particular pack that is wrong or could be a little better? Please submit a PR!
FAQ
Stack Pack Release Cycle
To ensure that all audit suggestions for stack packs are properly localized in time, there will be a cut-off at least twice a year (in Q2 and Q4) where all changes to audit descriptions for any stack will be sent to the Google translation teams. This means that there will be at least 2 stack pack releases every year.
When will more than just performance audits be supported?
Stack pack suggestions for audits will need to stay in-line with PageSpeed Insights. Performance audits are the only types of audits surfaced there which means they will be the only audits supported by stack packs in the near future.
Handling different versions of stacks
For most stacks, audit advice will be provided for the latest stable version. If developers are using an older version where they cannot include a particular suggestion that we provide, they will have to upgrade. We do not currently support providing different types of suggestions for multiple versions of the same tool in a single stack pack, but we may include this functionality in the future.
For example: We tell developers to use React’s Suspense feature in the React stack pack to code-split their bundles. This feature is only supported in version 16.6 but the developer is using an older version of React. By providing links to all relevant documentation, they should understand that they would have to upgrade their version.
What if two versions of a tool are completely different where suggestions for one might not work for another?
These two different versions will be treated as two separate stacks entirely for the meantime, each with their own feature detection (for example: Stack v2 and stack v3)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: