Skip to content
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

Use GitHub Actions to build jlreq? #272

Open
xfq opened this issue May 30, 2021 · 10 comments
Open

Use GitHub Actions to build jlreq? #272

xfq opened this issue May 30, 2021 · 10 comments

Comments

@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented May 30, 2021

jlreq is a very long document, so it takes a long time to open it. In #218 we optimized the images, and the performance has improved. I think the load time can be further optimized by building the document using GitHub actions, like the ARIA folks did here:

https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/blob/0e7accec081f995fc969f570ec048094791b0bc0/.github/workflows/deploy.yml

@himorin
Copy link
Contributor

himorin commented May 31, 2021

rather than building (processing respec and placing processed file) in this repository, I suppose we are encouraged to update as WD on /TR/ more frequently... (also I'm not sure whether these processing eats large volume within full load time.)

@kidayasuo
Copy link
Contributor

How the page load time is optimized by using the GitHub actions? (a novice question)

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Jun 1, 2021

rather than building (processing respec and placing processed file) in this repository, I suppose we are encouraged to update as WD on /TR/ more frequently... (also I'm not sure whether these processing eats large volume within full load time.)

This is fine, but ED is still slow (unless we synchronize the two commit by commit).

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Jun 1, 2021

How the page load time is optimized by using the GitHub actions? (a novice question)

I just tried it, and the speed of the two seemed very different. I opened these two pages on the same computer and network (I cleared the HTTP cache before each run):

The first one took ~9 seconds and the second one took ~3 seconds. I tried running it many times, and the results were about the same. I haven't investigated what caused such a big gap, though.

@kidayasuo
Copy link
Contributor

The first one took ~9 seconds and the second one took ~3 seconds.

Thank you Fuqiao! It seems the difference is significant.

@himorin
Copy link
Contributor

himorin commented Jun 3, 2021

(note, one issue which blocks this, spec generator has shorter limit than takes to process current JLreq - which is also a reason why pr-preview is not working.)

@r12a
Copy link
Contributor

r12a commented Jun 3, 2021

The first one took ~9 seconds and the second one took ~3 seconds.

Fwiw, for me the downloads took ~4 and ~3 seconds, respectively. So not a lot of difference.

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Jun 4, 2021

(note, one issue which blocks this, spec generator has shorter limit than takes to process current JLreq - which is also a reason why pr-preview is not working.)

This is tracked in w3c/spec-generator#396

We can also try to run ReSpec locally (in the GitHub action environment) instead of relying on spec-generator.

@himorin
Copy link
Contributor

himorin commented Jun 4, 2021

We can also try to run ReSpec locally (in the GitHub action environment) instead of relying on spec-generator.

haven't checked internal processing of w3c/spec-prod, but is this relies on external or local processing?? (yeah, I should secure time for check,,, I know..)

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Jun 5, 2021

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants