# Breaking changes in GeckoView

Agi sferro \<<mailto:agi@sferro.dev>>

## Abstract

This document describes the reasoning behind the GeckoView deprecation policy,
where we are today and where we want to be in the future.

## Background

The following sections illustrate how breaking changes are expensive and
frustrating as a consumer of GeckoView, as a Gecko engineer and as an external
consumer, how they take away time from the Fenix team. And finally, how
breaking changes negate the very advantages that brought us to the current
modularized architecture.

## Introduction

GeckoView is a library that provides consumers access to Gecko and is the main
way through which Gecko is consumed on Mozilla’s Android products.

GeckoView provides Nightly, Beta and Release channels which update with the
same cadence as Firefox Desktop does.

Firefox for Android (code name Fenix) uses GeckoView through Android Components
(AC for short), an Android library.

Fenix also provides Nightly, Beta and Release updates that mirror GeckoView and
Firefox Desktop’s.

## Testing days

All Firefox Gecko-based products release a new major version every 4 weeks.
Which means that, on average, a commit that lands on a random day during the
release cycle gets 2 weeks of testing time on the Nightly user base.

We try to increase the average testing time on Nightly by having a few “soft”
code-freeze days before each Merge day where engineers are not supposed to push
risky changes, but there’s no enforcement and it’s left to each engineer to
decide whether their change is risky or not.

Each day where the Nightly build is delayed, every change contained in the
current Nightly cycle gets 7% (1 out of 14 days) on average less testing that
it normally would during a build. That is assuming that a problem gets
immediately reported and the report is immediately referred to the right
Engineering team.

Assuming a 4 days report delay, each day where the Nightly build is delayed,
due to reasons such as breaking changes, reduces the average testing time by
10%.

## Reducing breakages

Breakages caused by upstream teams like GeckoView can be divided into 2 groups:

- Behavior changes that cause test failures downstream
- Breaking changes in the API that cause the build to fail.

To reduce breakages from group 1, the GeckoView team maintains an extensive set
of integration tests that operate solely on the GeckoView API, and therefore
rarely break because of refactoring.

For group 2, the GeckoView team instituted a deprecation policy which requires
each backward-incompatible change to keep the old code for 3 releases, allowing
downstream consumers, like Fenix, time to migrate asynchronously to the new
code without breaking the build.

## Functional testing and prototyping

GeckoView offers a test browser app called GeckoViewExample (or GVE) that is
developed in-tree and thus always available to test local changes.

GVE is the main testing vehicle for Gecko and GeckoView engineers that want to
develop new code, however, there frequently are issues or new features that
cannot be tested on GVE and need to be tested directly on Fenix.

To test new code in Fenix, the build system offers an easy way to swap
locally-build GeckoView in Fenix.

The process of testing new Gecko code in Fenix needs to be straightforward, as
it’s often used by platform engineers that are unfamiliar with Android and
Fenix itself, and are not likely to retain knowledge from running code on
Android and would likely need help to do so from the GeckoView or Fenix team.

## External consumers

For apps interested in building a browser for Android, GeckoView provides the
unique combination of being a modern Web engine with a relatively stable API.

For comparison, alternatives to GeckoView include:

- WebView, Android’s way of embedding web pages on Android apps. WebView has
  has several drawbacks for browser developers, including:

  - having a limited API for building browsers, as it does not expose modern
    Web features or browser-specific APIs like bookmarks, passwords, etc;
  - not allowing developers to control the underlying Chromium version. WebView
    users will get whatever version of WebView is installed on the device.
  - On the other hand, using WebView has the advantage of providing a smaller
    download package, as the bulk of the engine is already installed on the
    device.

- Fork Chromium, which has the drawback of either having to rewrite the entire
  browser front-end or locally patching the Chrome front-end, which involves
  frequent changes and updates to be on top of. Using Chromium has the advantage
  of providing the most stable, performant and compatible Web Engine on the
  market.

If the cost of updating GeckoView becomes high enough because of frequent API
changes, the advantage of using GeckoView is negated.

## Prior Art

Many public libraries offer a deprecation policy similar or better than
GeckoView. For example, Android APIs need to be deprecated for a few releases
before being considered for removal, and completely removed only in exceptional
cases. Google products’ deprecated APIs are supported for a year before being
removed. Ebay requires deprecating an API before removal.

## Status quo

Making backward-incompatible changes to the GeckoView API is currently heavily
discouraged and requires approval by the GeckoView team.

We do, however, have breaking changes from time to time. The last breaking
change was in June 2021, a refactor of the permission API which we didn’t think
was worth executing in a backward compatible way. Before that, the last
breaking change was in September 2020.

## Tracking breaking changes

Internally, GeckoView tracks the API using apilint. Each change that touches
the API requires an additional GeckoView peer to review the patch and a
description of the change in the changelog.

Apilint also tracks deprecated APIs and enforces their removal, so that old,
deprecated APIs don’t linger in the codebase for longer than necessary.

## The future

The ideal end state for GeckoView would be to not have any more backward
incompatible changes. Our experience is that supporting the old APIs for a
limited time is a small overhead in our development and that the benefits from
having a backward compatible API greatly outweigh the cost.

We cannot, however, predict all future needs of GeckoView and Firefox as a
whole, so we cannot exclude the possibility of having new breaking changes
going forward.
