PerformanceNavigationTiming.notRestoredReasons: untangle/expand reasons for null - #44669
Merged
Conversation
…ns for null This seemed a bit confused, since back/forward navigations after restart are real enough.
github-actions
Bot
added
Content:WebAPI
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
|
Preview URLs (1 page) (comment last updated: 2026-09-01 09:27:12) |
SamB
commented
Jul 8, 2026
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
github-actions
Bot
added
size/s
chrisdavidmills
requested changes
Jul 9, 2026
chrisdavidmills
left a comment
chrisdavidmills
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, @SamB, and thanks for the update! I really like your change, but I've provided the suggestion below to (I think) enhance it further.
Let me know what you think.
|
|
||
| > [!NOTE] | ||
| > `notRestoredReasons` may return `null` despite the navigation type being reported as a back/forward navigation. These circumstances include duplicating a back/forward navigation in a new tab and restoring a back/forward navigation tab after a browser restart. In such cases, some browsers copy the navigation type from the original tab, but as these are not actually back/forward navigations, `notRestoredReasons` returns `null`. | ||
| > `notRestoredReasons` may return `null` despite the navigation type being reported as a back/forward navigation. These circumstances include: |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| > `notRestoredReasons` may return `null` despite the navigation type being reported as a back/forward navigation. These circumstances include: | |
| It is worth noting that `notRestoredReasons` may return `null` even when the navigation type is reported as back/forward. These circumstances include: |
And then put this content into normal text, not as a note (remove the "> [!NOTE]" line and the ">" characters from the line starts). My reasoning:
- I think this info is getting a bit long to work as a note. At this point, it is more than 50% of the "Value" section.
- I also think it is important, so it should be part of the central flow. Notes are often viewed as asides, and sometimes glossed over by readers.
Josh-Cena
requested review from
chrisdavidmills and
wbamberg
and removed request for
a team
September 1, 2026 08:58
chrisdavidmills
approved these changes
Sep 1, 2026
chrisdavidmills
left a comment
chrisdavidmills
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool, this is ready to merge. Thanks again, @SamB.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Explain less-obvious reasons for this property to be
nullone at a time.Motivation
The existing text seemed a bit confused, since back/forward navigations after restart are real enough. Given this, I assumed the explanation already present was actually written for the first circumstance only.