Let’s talk about social anxiety

It took me a long time to publish my last post. I spent months trying to start it until I finally felt brave enough. I must confess that for a few hours after it was published I felt my anxiety levels rising. No-one responded. Nothing on Twitter or Facebook. Was everyone horrified at what I’d said?  What had I done?

I’m glad to say that those feelings soon subsided as friends and colleagues chimed in their support both public and private. A few mentioned that seeing me talk about these things helped them too. Knowing that you’re not alone is a powerful thing. That can be hard with mental health because we don’t talk about it. When it strikes you feel alone and isolated which makes everything worse.

So I thought I might try to talk more. Many people don’t know what it is like to have a mental health problem and I didn’t go into many details. Reading up on conditions doesn’t help much. Often it is just jargon but even then most things listed as specific conditions are really just buckets of symptoms that you get slotted into. What I call social anxiety should resonate with others but the specifics can and will differ.

I think that there is a lot of crossover between introversion and social anxiety. In fact I’m not really sure where the line is technically. I see the difference being how you feel when you’re around other people. For me it is often terror that you’re judging me for what I’m doing. Here’s an example.

Two months ago all of Mozilla gathered at Disneyworld. My trip there pretty much blew. Due to delays it took nearly 24 hours to cross the U.S. and after I arrived it took another 6 hours or so for the hotel to have a room for me. So I wasn’t exactly in my best possible state. The second night there was a big party. Aside from some near panic attacks walking to the venue (I don’t do well in slow-moving queues, despite being British) I managed to have a good time. Mainly I stuck with people who I knew really well. But after I got back to the hotel I was exhausted so I resolved to have a quiet night the next day and regain my energy for the final party.

So the next night I went out to find a quick bite in the middle of working on stuff in my hotel room. But I couldn’t. Everywhere I went there were Mozilla people. All of them staring at me, wondering why I was out by myself, why I wasn’t hanging out with others like normal people. I had to make it look like I had a reason. I was going to the gift shop to look for gifts for family. I surely wasn’t going to eat by myself because what sort of recluse does that?! Everytime I thought I had found somewhere without people I knew, someone showed up and I had to escape.

It was futile. I went back to the hotel and looked over the rather poor room service menu. But then I thought, no, this is rubbish. They aren’t really staring at you, they aren’t judging you, no-one is going to bat an eyelid if you choose to eat by yourself. I knew this logically and so I just had to act on it. So I went out again. And again I failed to find food. I just couldn’t do it. It was too much. There were people everywhere. What if they asked if I wanted to join them? I’d have to come up with some excuse for why I didn’t want to without offending them. My lizard brain was telling me that I had to run away. I went back to my room and felt awful. How much of a failure was I that I couldn’t even find food by myself?

It sounds ridiculous writing about it now from the safety of my home. Why would anyone care that I’m eating alone? There are surely enough people in Mozilla that need some time to themselves here and there that it would hardly be surprising. And as much as I can tell myself that now, I couldn’t when I was out there physically walking amongst people I knew and feeling like I couldn’t do the things I wanted.

This is one of the ways social anxiety affects me, the inability to do seemingly simple and benign things when in public because I’m terrified of how others will view me.

More to come.

Me and my dumb brain

Today those polite folk from up north have been talking about mental health and how it affects them and those around them. Mental health is one of those issues that we too rarely talk about. I think it’s partly because you can’t see the problem and unless you have experienced it yourself it can be very difficult to understand. There has always been a stigma attached as if for some reason having something wrong with your mind is much worse than having any other kind of medical issue.

Whether you know it or not you’ve known people with mental health problems. Maybe chronic conditions that they will have to learn to live with for the rest of their lives, maybe just short term problems that time and therapy can help with. I’ve always been very impressed at how brave some of my friends have been to come out, as it were, to me or their community about the difficulties they face. Today it felt like it should be my turn.

For most of my adult life I’ve suffered from social anxiety. It’s never been too much of a problem but being in public spaces and interacting with people I don’t know well has been hard. In particular this affects me with phone calls and video conferences which I try to avoid wherever possible. Mostly I can push myself past this, particularly if there are a few drinks to be had to calm my nerves, but it still affects the things I will consider doing meaning I just stay at home a lot.

Some years ago though things got a little harder. Since then I’ve been suffering from IBS, a simple name for a condition that isn’t really understood and is mostly the diagnosis you get if you have chronic stomach problems and no-one can identify why. As you might expect from that there isn’t really a cure or anything that will help symptoms for everyone. For some people one thing works, for others something else will work. For some it only lasts a while, for others it lasts a lifetime. One thing that is true for many people with IBS is that it causes anxiety and depression and that has been true for me for about four years now.

Going to places I’m not familiar with, long journeys, anything where I’m expecting to be stuck somewhere and unable to go to a bathroom at short notice all trigger my anxiety. Add in the social anxiety which makes me feel pressured to not act out of the ordinary when I’m around other people when this is going on and you’ve got a great combination for me never wanting to leave the house. Add in other normally manageable life stresses and you’ve got the perfect recipe for panic attacks when I do. Oh and did I mention that stress and anxiety make IBS worse?

Thankfully I’m in the position that no one of my problems are debilitating, it is just the combination of them and other normal sources of stress and how they feed each other that makes me go through periods of extreme anxiety often with short periods of depression. Alleviating one of them helps to alleviate the others automatically. Shortly before Chloë was born my IBS was largely gone. The anxiety remained but I went into therapy and for a time things were mostly normal. Unfortunately things have taken a downturn lately.

One thing’s for sure, adding a baby to your family sure increases your stress levels and along with some medical issues with family members I’ve got caught back in the viscous cycle. And so now I’m taking anti-depressants to help stop the panic attacks and get my anxiety under control again. Medication is not something I take lightly, but it is necessary right now while I get back into therapy.I’m very proud of the family I have who have supported me since opening up about this. It’s made the difference between feeling like someone who has to hide themselves and someone who can actually be themselves, which is very important for someone with social anxiety. If someone opens up to you about something like this, please accept and support them. You may not be able to understand exactly what they’re going through but taking the pressure off by letting them know that you’ll help in any way you can means a lot.

Improving the performance of the add-ons manager with asynchronous file I/O

The add-ons manager has a dirty secret. It uses an awful lot of synchronous file I/O. This is the kind of I/O that blocks the main thread and can cause Firefox to be janky. I’m told that that is a technical term. Asynchronous file I/O is much nicer, it means you can let the rest of the app continue to function while you wait for the I/O operation to complete. I rewrote much of the current code from scratch for Firefox 4.0 and even back then we were trying to switch to asynchronous file I/O wherever possible. But still I used mostly synchronous file I/O.

Here is the problem. For many moons we have allowed other applications to install add-ons into Firefox by dropping them into the filesystem or registry somewhere. We also have to do things like updating and installing non-restartless add-ons during startup when their files aren’t in use. And we have to know the full set of non-restartless add-ons that we are going to activate quite early in startup so the startup function for the add-ons manager has to do all those installs and a scan of the extension folders before returning back to the code startup up the browser, and that means being synchronous.

The other problem is that for the things that we could conceivably use async I/O, like installs and updates of restartless add-ons during runtime we need to use the same code for loading and parsing manifests, extracting zip files and others that we need to be synchronous during startup. So we can either write a second version that is asynchronous so we can have nice performance at runtime or use the synchronous version so we only have one version to test and maintain. Keeping things synchronous was where things fell in the end.

That’s always bugged me though. Runtime is the most important time to use asynchronous I/O. We shouldn’t be janking the browser when installing a large add-on particularly on mobile and so we have taken some steps since Firefox 4 to make parts of the code asynchronous. But there is still a bunch there.

The plan

The thing is that there isn’t actually a reason we can’t use the asynchronous I/O functions. All we have to do is make sure that startup is blocked until everything we need is complete. It’s pretty easy to spin an event loop from JavaScript to wait for asynchronous operations to complete so why not do that in the startup function and then start making things asynchronous?

Performances is pretty important for the add-ons manager startup code, the longer we spend in startup the more it hurts us. Would this switch slow things down? I assumed that there would be some losses due to other things happening during an event loop tick that otherwise wouldn’t have but that the file I/O operations should take around the same time. And here is the clever bit. Because it is asynchronous I could fire off operations to run in parallel. Why check the modification time of every file in a directory one file at a time when you can just request the times for every file and wait until they all complete?

There are really a tonne of things that could affect whether this would be faster or slower and no amount of theorising was convincing me either way and last night this had finally been bugging me for long enough that I grabbed a bottle of wine, fired up the music and threw together a prototype.

The results

It took me a few hours to switch most of the main methods to use Task.jsm, switch much of the likely hot code to use OS.File and to run in parallel where possible and generally cover all the main parts that run on every startup and when add-ons have changed.

The challenge was testing. Default talos runs don’t include any add-ons (or maybe one or two) and I needed a few different profiles to see how things behaved in different situations. It was possible that startups with no add-ons would be affected quite differently to startups with many add-ons. So I had to figure out how to add extensions to the default talos profiles for my try runs and fired off try runs for the cases where there were no add-ons, 200 unpacked add-ons with a bunch of files and 200 packed add-ons. I then ran all those a second time with deleting extensions.json between each run to force the database to be loaded and rebuilt. So six different talos runs for the code without my changes and then another six with my changes and I triggered ten runs per test and went to bed.

The first thing I did this morning was check the performance results. The first ready was with 200 packed add-ons in the profile, should be a good check of the file scanning. How did it do? Amazing! Incredible! A greater than 50% performance improvement across the board! That’s astonishing! No really that’s pretty astonishing. It would have to mean the add-ons manager takes up at least 50% of the browser startup time and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. Oh right I’m accidentally comparing to the test run with 200 packed add-ons and a database reset with my async code. Well I’d expect that to be slower.

Ok, let’s get it right. How did it really do? Abysmally! Like incredibly badly. Across the board in every test run startup is significantly slower with the asynchronous I/O than without. With no add-ons in the profile the new code incurs a 20% performance hit. In the case with 200 unpacked add-ons? An almost 1000% hit!

What happened?

Ok so that wasn’t the best result but at least it will stop bugging me now. I figure there are two things going on here. The first is that OS.File might look like you can fire off I/O operations in parallel but in fact you can’t. Every call you make goes into a queue and the background worker thread doesn’t start on one operation until the previous has completed. So while the I/O operations themselves might take about the same time you have the added overhead of passing messages between the background thread and promises. I probably should have checked that before I started! Oh, and promises. Task.jsm and OS.File make heavy use of promises and I have to say I’m sold on using them for async code. But. Everytime you wait for a promise you have to wait at least one tick of the event loop longer than you would with a simple callback. That’s great if you want responsive UI but during startup every event loop tick costs time since other code might be running that you don’t care about.

I still wonder if we could get more threads for OS.File whether it would speed things up but that’s beyond where I want to play with things for now so I guess this is where this fun experiment ends. Although now I have a bunch of code converted I wonder if I can create some replacements for OS.File and Task.jsm that behave synchronously during startup and asynchronously at runtime, then we get the best of both worlds … where did that bottle of wine go?

Linting for Mozilla JavaScript code

One of the projects I’ve been really excited about recently is getting ESLint working for a lot of our JavaScript code. If you haven’t come across ESLint or linters in general before they are automated tools that scan your code and warn you about syntax errors. They can usually also be set up with a set of rules to enforce code styles and warn about potential bad practices. The devtools and Hello folks have been using eslint for a while already and Gijs asked why we weren’t doing this more generally. This struck a chord with me and a few others and so we’ve been spending some time over the past few weeks getting our in-tree support for ESLint to work more generally and fixing issues with browser and toolkit JavaScript code in particular to make them lintable.

One of the hardest challenges with this is that we have a lot of non-standard JavaScript in our tree. This includes things like preprocessing as well as JS features that either have since been standardized with a different syntax (generator functions for example) or have been dropped from the standardization path (array comprehensions). This is bad for developers as editors can’t make sense of our code and provide good syntax highlighting and refactoring support when it doesn’t match standard JavaScript. There are also plans to remove the non-standard JS features so we have to remove that stuff anyway.

So a lot of the work done so far has been removing all this non-standard stuff so that ESLint can pass with only a very small set of style rules defined. Soon we’ll start increasing the rules we check in browser and toolkit.

How do I lint?

From the command line this is simple. Make sure and run ./mach eslint --setup to install eslint and some related packages then just ./mach eslint <directory or file> to lint a specific area. You can also lint the entire tree. For now you may need to periodically run setup again as we add new dependencies, at some point we may make mach automatically detect that you need to re-run it.

You can also add ESLint support to many code editors and as of today you can add ESLint support into hg!

Why lint?

Aside from just ensuring we have standard JavaScript in the tree linting offers a whole bunch of benefits.

  • Linting spots JavaScript syntax errors before you have to run your code. You can configure editors to run ESLint to tell you when something is broken so you can fix it even before you save.
  • Linting can be used to enforce the sorts of style rules that keep our code consistent. Imagine no more nit comments in code review forcing you to update your patch. You can fix all those before submitting and reviewers don’t have to waste time pointing them out.
  • Linting can catch real bugs. When we turned on one of the basic rules we found a problem in shipping code.
  • With only standard JS code to deal with we open the possibility of using advanced like AST transforms for refactoring (e.g. recast). This could be very useful for switching from Cu.import to ES6 modules.
  • ESLint in particular allows us to write custom rules for doing clever things like handling head.js imports for tests.

Where are we?

There’s a full list of everything that has been done so far in the dependencies of the ESLint metabug but some highlights:

  • Removed #include preprocessing from browser.js moving all included scripts to global-scripts.inc
  • Added an ESLint plugin to allow linting the JS parts of XBL bindings
  • Fixed basic JS parsing issues in lots of b2g, browser and toolkit code
  • Created a hg extension that will warn you when committing code that fails ESLint
  • Turned on some basic linting rules
  • Mozreview is close to being able to lint your code and give review comments where things fail
  • Work is almost complete on a linting test that will turn orange on the tree when code fails to lint

What’s next?

I’m grateful to all those that have helped get things moving here but there is still more work to do. If you’re interested there’s really two ways you can help. We need to lint more files and we need to turn on more lint rules.

The .eslintignore file shows what files are currently ignored in the lint checks. Removing files and directories from that involves fixing JavaScript standards issues generally but every extra file we lint is a win for all the above reasons so it is valuable work. Also mostly straightforward once you get the hang of it, there are just a lot of files.

We also need to turn on more rules. We’ve got a rough list of the rules we want to turn on in browser and toolkit but as you might guess they aren’t on because they fail right now. Fixing up our JS to work with them is simple work but much appreciated. In some cases ESLint can also do the work for you!

Running ESLint on commit

ESLint becomes the most useful when you get warnings before even trying to land or get your code reviewed. You can add support to your code editor but not all editors support this so I’ve written a mercurial extension which gives you warnings any time you commit code that fails lint checks. It uses the same rules we run elsewhere. It doesn’t abort the commit, that would be annoying if you’re working on a feature branch but gives you a heads up about what needs to be fixed and where.

To install the extension add this to a hgrc file, I put it in the .hg/hgrc file of my mozilla-central clone rather than the global config.

mozeslint = <path to clone>/tools/mercurial/eslintvalidate.py

After that anything that creates a commit, so that includes mq patches, will run any changed JS files through ESLint and show the results. If the file was already failing checks in a few places then you’ll still see those too, maybe you should fix them up too before sending your patch for review? 😉

Delivering Firefox features faster

Over time Mozilla has been trying to reduce the amount of time between developing a feature and getting it into a user’s hands. Some time ago we would do around one feature release of Firefox every year, more recently we’ve moved to doing one feature release every six weeks. But it still takes at least 12 weeks for a feature to get to users. In some cases we can speed that up by landing new things directly on the beta/aurora branches but the more we do this the harder it is for release managers to track the risk of shipping a given release.

The Go Faster project is investigating ways that we can speed up getting changes to users. System add-ons are one piece of this that will let us deliver updates to core Firefox features more often than the regular six week releases. Instead of being embedded in the rest of the code certain features will be developed as standalone system add-ons.

Building features as add-ons gives us more flexibility in how we deliver the features to users. System add-ons will ship in two different ways. First every Firefox release will include a default set of system add-ons. These are the latest versions of the features at the time the Firefox build was produced. Later during runtime Firefox will contact Mozilla’s update servers to ask for the current list of system add-ons. If there are new or updated versions listed Firefox will download and install them giving users access to the newest features without needing to update the entire application.

Building a feature as an add-on gives developers a lot of benefits too. Developers will be able to work on and test new features without doing custom Firefox builds. Users can even try out new features by just installing the add-ons. Once the feature is ready to ship it ships as an add-on with no code changes necessary for integration into Firefox. This is something we’ve attempted to do before with things like Test Pilot and pdf.js, but system add-ons make this process much smoother and reduces the differences between how the feature runs as an add-on and how it runs when shipped in the application.

The basic support for system add-ons is already included in current nightly builds and Firefox 44 should be the first release that we could use to deliver features like this if we choose. If you’re interested in the details you can read the client implementation plan or follow along the tracking bug for the client side of the feature.

Making communicating with chrome from in-content pages easy

As Firefox increasingly switches to support running in multiple processes we’ve been finding common problems. Where we can we are designing nice APIs to make solving them easy. One problem is that we often want to run in-content pages like about:newtab and about:home in the child process without privileges making it safer and less likely to bring down Firefox in the event of a crash. These pages still need to get information from and pass information to the main process though, so we have had to come up with ways to handle that. Often we use custom code in a frame script acting as a middle-man, using things like DOM events to listen for requests from the in-content page and then messaging to the main process.

We recently added a new API to make this problem easier to solve. Instead of needing code in a frame script the RemotePageManager module allows special pages direct access to a message manager to communicate with the main process. This can be useful for any page running in the content area, regardless of whether it needs to be run at low privileges or in the content process since it takes care of listening for documents and hooking up the message listeners for you.

There is a low-level API available but the higher-level API is probably more useful in most cases. If your code wants to interact with a page like about:myaddon just do this from the main process:

let manager = new RemotePages("about:myaddon");

The manager object is now something resembling a regular process message manager. It has sendAsyncMessage and addMessageListener methods but unlike the regular e10s message managers it only communicates with about:myaddon pages. Unlike the regular message managers there is no option to send synchronous messages or pass cross-process wrapped objects.

When about:myaddon is loaded it has sendAsyncMessage and addMessageListener functions defined in its global scope for regular JavaScript to call. Anything that can be structured-cloned can be passed between the processes

The module documentation has more in-depth examples showing message passing between the page and the main process.

The RemotePageManager module is available in nightlies now and you can see it in action with the simple change I landed to switch about:plugins to run in the content process. For the moment the APIs only support exact URL matching but it would be possible to add support for regular expressions in the future if that turns out to be useful.

hgchanges is back up

The offending changeset that broke hgchanges yesterday turns out to be a merge from an ancient branch to current tip. That makes the diff insanely huge which is why things like hgweb were tripping over it. Kwierso point out that just ignoring those changesets would solve the problem. It’s not ideal but since in this case they aren’t useful changesets I’ve gone ahead and done that and so hgchanges is now updating again.

hgchanges is down for now

My handy tool for tracking changes to directories in the mozilla mercurial repositories is going to be broken for a little while. Unfortunately a particular changeset seems to be breaking things in ways I don’t have the time to fix right now. Specifically trying to download the raw patch for the changeset is causing hgweb to timeout. Short of finding time to debug and fix the problem my only solution is to wait until that patch is old enough that it no longer attempts to index it. That could take a week or so.

Obviously I’ll happily accept patches to fix this problem sooner.

Welcome the new Toolkit peers

I have been a little lax in my duty of keeping the list of peers for Toolkit up to date and there have been a few notable exceptions. Thankfully we’re good about disregarding rules when it makes sense to and so many people who should be peers have already been doing reviews. Of course that’s no use to new contributors trying to figure out who should review what so I am grateful to someone who prodded me into updating the list.

As I was doing so I came to the conclusion that there is a lot of overlap between Firefox code and Toolkit code. Lots of patches touch both at the same time and it often doesn’t make a lot of sense to require different reviewers there. I also couldn’t think of a reason why someone would be a trusted reviewer of Firefox code and yet not be trusted to review Toolkit code. Looking at the differences in the lists of peers confirmed that all those missing really should be Toolkit peers too.

So going forwards I have decided that Firefox peers will automatically be considered to be Toolkit peers. That means I can announce a whole bunch of new people who are now Toolkit peers, please congratulate them in the usual way, by flooding their review queue:

  • Ehsan Akhgari
  • Mike de Boer
  • Mike Conley
  • Georg Fritzsche
  • Mark Hammond
  • Felipe Gomes
  • Gijs Kruitbosch
  • Florian Quèze
  • Tim Taubert

You might ask if the reverse should hold true, should all Toolkit peers be Firefox peers? i.e. should we just merge the lists. I leave that to the Firefox owner to decide but I will say that there are a few pieces of Toolkit that are very much not front-end and so in some cases I could see a reviewer for that area not needing to be listed in the Firefox list, not because they wouldn’t be trusted to turn down the patches they couldn’t review but just because there would be almost no patches in their area in Firefox. Maybe that case is so rare that it isn’t worth the hassle of two lists though.