This ticket tracks annotating crash reports with whether we're in background task mode and the name (and arguments?) of any such task. It's possible we already have the command line in our annotations, which would allow to derive this.

AFAICT, we don't annotate crash reports with whether or not we're in headless mode. I'm not sure if that was intentional or merely not considered. It feels similar.

bdahl: was annotating crash reports for headless considered? Nothing relevant is listed in https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/f6ffb71dca9eb491e85aa95042380b2602008b00/toolkit/crashreporter/CrashAnnotations.yaml.

gsvelto: would annotating these runtime "modes" be helpful, or not worth the effort?

I remember we talked about it, but the headless work was de-priortized so it was never done.

One thing to keep in mind (that I just learned about the other day), we're going to start having a semi-headless mode that is used in regular Firefox content processes to avoid initializing gtk. You may want to talk to jld to ensure we distinguish those in the crash reports.

If we will be running headless and visible processes side-by-side on users' machines I'd say yes. Will this be a property of the process? Right now we have two bits we use to tell processes apart: ProcessType which contains the basic type of the process (from here) and RemoteType (from here). IIUC this will be in addition to both so one could have a headless webisolated content process for example.

(In reply to Gabriele Svelto [:gsvelto] from comment #3)

If we will be running headless and visible processes side-by-side on users' machines I'd say yes. Will this be a property of the process? Right now we have two bits we use to tell processes apart: ProcessType which contains the basic type of the process (from here) and RemoteType (from here). IIUC this will be in addition to both so one could have a headless webisolated content process for example.

gsvelto: sorry for the delayed reply, I've been very much heads down. It's not really true that it's a function of the process, at least not at this time. It's more a function of the "Firefox invocation", i.e.,

firefox --headless ...

would annotate all processes as running in headless mode, and

firefox --backgroundtask ...

would annotate all processes (should be just the main process) as running in background task mode.

I will see if this is straightforward.

Depends on D130187

Comment on attachment 9248894 [details]
WIP: Bug 1697875 - WIP on Part 2: Annotate crash reports with Windows app package name and publisher. r?gsvelto

Revision D130188 was moved to bug 1737108. Setting attachment 9248894 [details] to obsolete.

chutten: if you could also provide guidance re: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D129882#4220659 I'd appreciate it. I'm fairly certain these should be in the crash pings now that I know the difference between reports and pings.

Comment on attachment 9249828 [details]
1697875-data-review-1.md

DATA COLLECTION REVIEW RESPONSE:

Is there or will there be documentation that describes the schema for the ultimate data set available publicly, complete and accurate?

Yes.

Is there a control mechanism that allows the user to turn the data collection on and off?

Yes. This collection is Telemetry so can be controlled through Firefox's Preferences.

If the request is for permanent data collection, is there someone who will monitor the data over time?

Yes, :bdahl and :nalexander are responsible.

Using the category system of data types on the Mozilla wiki, what collection type of data do the requested measurements fall under?

Category 1, Technical.

Is the data collection request for default-on or default-off?

Default on for all channels.

Does the instrumentation include the addition of any new identifiers?

No.

Is the data collection covered by the existing Firefox privacy notice?

Yes.

Does the data collection use a third-party collection tool?

No.

Result: datareview+

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/81a8b5991a12