From the command prompt can you provide a list of URL's instead of one at a time?
From this:
lighthouse
to
lighthouse
@george-nelson, right now lighthouse runs a single URL, but if you wanted to run a bunch of URL you could do so sequentially using a bash script or something like that?
Thanks for the quick response. That's how I have configured in Jenkins. My ultimate goal is have some sort of dashboard in a matrix format.
URL | Performance | Accessibility|Best Practices
----- | ---------------| -------------| -------------
Site1 | 0 | 83 | 63
Site2 | 10 | 23 | 53
Hey George- thanks for passing along this request! This is something we're definitely considering implementing, but need to prioritize accordingly. Keep watching the bug and we'll update it soon with the prioritization :)
@george-nelson some of the code in this package might help: https://github.com/emazzotta/lighthouse-badges
It takes a list of urls like you describe but produces badges with averages rather than a detailed matrix.
Will take a look at it - thank you for the follow up
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2018, at 3:43 PM, Steve Persch <[email protected]notifications@github.com> wrote:
@george-nelsonhttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fgeorge-nelson&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4bc94e430acb417421d008d56daaaa84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636535502122450838&sdata=cd4Ftahpy9MRJjHW1Mbm5n7e3ituSI7Dl8wjRJna0tY%3D&reserved=0 some of the code in this package might help: https://github.com/emazzotta/lighthouse-badgeshttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Femazzotta%2Flighthouse-badges&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4bc94e430acb417421d008d56daaaa84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636535502122450838&sdata=tKUkRmFsAAdQe1nrTtI9CkCbXSVoQRRmU4mejfQ2bqk%3D&reserved=0
It takes a list of urls like you describe but produces badges with averages rather than a detailed matrix.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FGoogleChrome%2Flighthouse%2Fissues%2F3788%23issuecomment-363574531&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4bc94e430acb417421d008d56daaaa84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636535502122450838&sdata=5ZUngfQECF5pSNr7zDUcXhOAG8v7FUORVRVDqywsbds%3D&reserved=0, or mute the threadhttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FABmg3RGwTSfel5ytZs4CKuE6P17GWwTjks5tSMeAgaJpZM4QXK_Q&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4bc94e430acb417421d008d56daaaa84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636535502122450838&sdata=v%2F3NuchD8QaIAwJYAH8f45RZHuxXeh4paJ3cFx7hfYI%3D&reserved=0.
I think we realized that the metric for "Unused CSS" might not be accurate for our SPA because certain views weren't being rendered for that just yet. Multiple URLs in a single lighthouse run would help give a better sense of that metric - but maybe reconciling those performance tests across multiple URLs is a much bigger task than I'm imagining!
I would like to make an addition to the request raised by @george-nelson.
It would be good if we could do this for urls which require authentication too?
As of now i do this manually after starting the chrome-debugger and then subsequently running lighthouse for different urls.
@shaijujanardhanan u can use lighthouse with puppeteer on that one automate login authentication using puppeteer and then use lighthouse to audit your desired url/page. read this one here
Closing in favor of other tools. Can script on the command line (or in node) or try one of the many integrations and related projects
Does feel like enabling an array of URLs into the CLI tool should be pretty straight-forward and helpful
Does feel like cat urls.txt | xargs -I % lighthouse % should be pretty straight-forward to do without unnecessarily complicating the core library.
Most helpful comment
Hey George- thanks for passing along this request! This is something we're definitely considering implementing, but need to prioritize accordingly. Keep watching the bug and we'll update it soon with the prioritization :)