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

Inconsistent Media Resource Count Between resource-summary and network-requests Audits #16113

Open
3 tasks done
LarsFlieger opened this issue Jul 12, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
3 tasks done
Assignees

Comments

@LarsFlieger
Copy link

FAQ

URL

http://www.mercedes-benz.com/

What happened?

The resource-summary and network-requests audits do not have the same number of items with resourceType set to Media. In resource-summary, there are 2 items, whereas in network-requests, there are actually 3 items with the media type. I noticed that there is an item with a blob URL in the network requests but couldn't find any documentation stating that this blob should not be counted in the resource-summary.

I have uploaded the report with the information here: https://gist.github.com/LarsFlieger/f6671b59bffdc768a6b4624aefc8f00c

What did you expect?

I expected the number of items with resourceType Media to be consistent between the resource-summary and network-requests audits.

What have you tried?

I have reviewed the audit details and checked the documentation but could not find any information explaining if blob URLs in network requests should not be counted in the resource-summary.

How were you running Lighthouse?

PageSpeed Insights

Lighthouse Version

12.0.0

Chrome Version

125.0.6422.154

Node Version

No response

OS

No response

Relevant log output

No response

@adamraine
Copy link
Member

I did some digging. So the blob: scheme is ignored when counting for resource-summary because it represents a non-network request. It is still logged in network-requests because the page made a request for it (but it's transfer size is 0).

The difference is subtle so more docs explaining this would be good, but this is working as intended.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants