Add entry to the performance entry buffer in `mark()` and `measure()` seems excessive
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 31
- Forks
- 16
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Specs: User Timing
We already have this step in queue a PerformanceEntry with more checks.
I believe this should be marked as sub step or note should be ADDED for double reference.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read the User Timing specification and the linked Performance Timeline definition for queueing a PerformanceEntry. Compare the mark() and measure() steps with the existing queueing checks, then clarify whether the entry-buffer step should be a substep or a note to avoid duplicating the reference.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100