3 ms·

afaik the worst of the memory leaks were fixed with the 2.0 release, and they also upgraded QtWebKit to 5.3 which fixed some pretty egregiously outdated constra

afaik the worst of the memory leaks were fixed with the 2.0 release, and they also upgraded QtWebKit to 5.3 which fixed some pretty egregiously outdated constraints (like not having access to Function.prototype.bind) present in the previous version. Sadly this tool utilizes phantomjs 1.9 which means the memory leaks are still present and major WebKit features are still missing. One great use for headless is to separate non-UI framework/platform tests from UI tests - at my previous gig we wrote all the tests for the runtime platform against phantomjs to avoid the unneeded overhead of a full browser for things like data validation or mocking service calls, but used selenium to do the visual/interaction tests for the application UI itself. it's also a nice separation of concerns, though of course we hit all the same problems you mentioned as we were also pinned to 1.9.

curiously 11y ago
https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues 1470 open issues the first one is about phantomjs crashing and many many other scary sounding issues you wouldn't have if you've used just a regular browser with Xvfb. you can't really be sure unless you've literally run a test on the colorful variety of websites in the wild. You need a huge development and quality assurance team. You also need a way for a large crowd of people to test your browser and send back useful reports automatically whenever it crashes.
- jaredmcateer 11y ago
  Open issues is a pretty bad metric, especially considering the other major open source browsers would make PhantomJS look downright perfect. Chrome: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list 73,025 open issues Firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&product=Firefox&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&order=priority%2Cbug_severity&limit=0 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIR... 10,000 open issues.
  - curiously 11y ago
    apples and oranges. chrome and firefox is used by millions of people. of course its going to have more eyes on it but when was the last time you couldn't render something in your browser? phantomjs is used mainly by developers. you can't seriously compare it to chrome or firefox. quick scan shows that most of the bugs showing up in chrome and firefox are very platform centric or esoteric issues while phantomjs is concerning because they are literally about being unable to render a webpage without crashing.
- 286c8cb04bda 11y ago
  > 1470 open issues That's a really weak argument. Here's 5000 Firefox bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=General&product=Firefox&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&order=bug_status%2Cpriority%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_id&limit=0
  - curiously 11y ago
    considering firefox userbase is many many times those of phantomjs it shouldn't be of surprise to you. especially when most of phantomjs issues revolve around the same issues, unable to render a website that you can browse fine with firefox or chrome. this is a consistent issue that has haunted the project since the beginning.

curiously 11y ago

https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues 1470 open issues the first one is about phantomjs crashing and many many other scary sounding issues you wouldn't have if you've used just a regular browser with Xvfb. you can't really be sure unless you've literally run a test on the colorful variety of websites in the wild. You need a huge development and quality assurance team. You also need a way for a large crowd of people to test your browser and send back useful reports automatically whenever it crashes.

jaredmcateer 11y ago
Open issues is a pretty bad metric, especially considering the other major open source browsers would make PhantomJS look downright perfect. Chrome: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list 73,025 open issues Firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&product=Firefox&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&order=priority%2Cbug_severity&limit=0 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIR... 10,000 open issues.
- curiously 11y ago
  apples and oranges. chrome and firefox is used by millions of people. of course its going to have more eyes on it but when was the last time you couldn't render something in your browser? phantomjs is used mainly by developers. you can't seriously compare it to chrome or firefox. quick scan shows that most of the bugs showing up in chrome and firefox are very platform centric or esoteric issues while phantomjs is concerning because they are literally about being unable to render a webpage without crashing.
286c8cb04bda 11y ago
> 1470 open issues That's a really weak argument. Here's 5000 Firefox bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=General&product=Firefox&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&order=bug_status%2Cpriority%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_id&limit=0
- curiously 11y ago
  considering firefox userbase is many many times those of phantomjs it shouldn't be of surprise to you. especially when most of phantomjs issues revolve around the same issues, unable to render a website that you can browse fine with firefox or chrome. this is a consistent issue that has haunted the project since the beginning.