-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
Support budget for categories #6
Comments
Huge +1 to this. This is a great idea. Thanks for opening this issue. Happy to bike shed over format :) This is the format that I'm currently leaning towards. Very interested in feedback on this: [
{
"path": "/*",
"lighthouse": [
{
"category": "accessibility",
"budget": 1
},
{
"category": "seo",
"budget": 0.9
},
{
"category": "best-practices",
"budget": 0.8
}
]
}
]
|
Specific Responses/Thoughts
The name here to me is highly dependent on how the
I like this change a lot 👍 not only for the flexibility of Lighthouse assertions into the future but also the siloing of lighthouse-specific config going into an explicitly named property, just for it (see meta point below). Meta PointI'm not sure yet if I love lighthouse-specific assertions in the budgets.json format :) On the one hand, I see On the other hand, I'm a Lighthouse engineer that would love to see these aspects of web quality taken into consideration as widely as possible, so inclusion in a generic budgets format is awesome! :) |
@khempenius I agree with all your suggestions. Moving LH logic to a separate section makes sense. Meta-level@patrickhulce initially, I thought about |
👍 Would love to see this happen! |
It's useful to keep Lighthouse categories in check, especially those, that rely on static page analysis, like
accessibility
,seo
, andbest-practices
. Decrease of the score is often a sign of a quality regression.This feature will allow analyzing pages with Lighthouse in CI and will help to make projects like https://github.com/treosh/lighthouse-ci-action more useful.
Proposed format:
The format is open for debate. The proposed one is inspired the current Lighthouse report on categories with
id
andminimumScore
value between 0 and 1.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: