Update on AMO's performance tests · 2011-05-18 18:02 by Wladimir Palant
Disclaimer: I am not associated with AMO in any way, simply an add-on developer.
I forgot to update my overview of AMO’s performance measurements for their latest test run on May 14th, done it now. As Alice Nodelman notes, a bunch of bugs has been fixed on the technical side. Six weeks after the campaign announcement it finally looks like the most critical bugs are fixed and the numbers are mostly reliable.
- 9 add-ons have been tested in Firefox 4 despite not being marked as compatible with Firefox 4 (bug 648229)
- Testing one add-on (Provider for Google Calendar) has been attempted despite it not being a Firefox add-on at all (bug 648229 as well)
- 9 add-ons that weren’t tested because of being platform-dependent (bug 648225)
- 2 add-ons (Google Toolbar and Memory Fox) weren’t tested because they have no stable version for download on addons.mozilla.org
- 1 add-on (ReminderFox) wasn’t tested because Talos failed to parse its install.rdf file (bug 658187)
- 1 add-on (Adblock Plus) wasn’t tested because the browser couldn’t be closed due to modal dialogs (bug 648222). Tests for two other add-ons (ImTranslator and BetterPrivacy) “crashed” on Windows 7 only, most likely for the same reason.
- Still a very high number of add-ons with results considerably skewed by bug 648734
What’s still missing IMHO is giving the user some idea of what these numbers mean instead of simply using the metric with the highest scare factor. Personally, I would prefer bug 648742 to be fixed.
Commenting is closed for this article.