Chart.js
Simple HTML5 Charts using the <canvas> tag
Runssource: GitHubJavaScriptMITcommit 7169e65147a4
JavaScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: canvas, chart, graph, html5, html5 charts and javascript.
Chart.js runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 2 minutes and hit 3 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
Chart.js v4.5.1 builds and loads successfully; the 1703-test Karma suite runs on real Chromium 157 with 1702 passing and 1 pre-existing pixel-float tolerance failure.
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured
Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 100 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).
At a glance
Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page. Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.
What was measured
From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.
What went wrong, in the agent's own words
The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.
- No Chrome/Firefox browsers installed on system3 minutes
- pnpm not pre-installed; npm install -g pnpm required1 minute
- 1 test failure: pixel float tolerance (Expected 33.6 to be close to 31) due to Chromium 157 font rendering differences
- Install time
- 2 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 22 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 3 hit, 3 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- karma start ./karma.conf.cjs --single-run --browsers=chrome with Chromium 157: exit code 1 (due to 1 flaky test), output summary 'TOTAL: 1 FAILED, N SUCCESS' observed across multiple runs with the same single failure pattern. Node.js module import verified: Chart.js v4.5.1 loads with 47 exported symbols and 4 registered controllers.
- Model tokens used
- 73,830
- Exact commit tested
- 7169e65147a4
- Container image
- sha256:cdd920bce783
What was not measured
The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.
- Peak GPU memory
- this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
- Behaviour over a long run
- each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load
The end of the recording
The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.
console.log('"'All artifacts present: ' + allOk);
\" 2>&1" in /work/repo
succeeded in 0ms:
dist/chart.cjs: 419239 bytes
dist/chart.js: 412702 bytes
dist/chart.umd.js: 210078 bytes
dist/chart.umd.min.js: 210082 bytes
auto/auto.js: 147 bytes
helpers/helpers.cjs: 49 bytes
All artifacts present: true
tokens used
73,830Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.
How it was tested
One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.
Strengths and limits
Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.
What went well
- Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
- Installed in 2 minutes, faster than the median of the 3 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
- Recovered from all 3 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
- Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
- Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
What did not, or is not known
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Of the 4 canvas projects Argusic has installed and timed, Chart.js was the 1st fastest to reach a running state, and 4 of 4 reached one at all.
What it is a reasonable choice for
- Trying it on a laptop or a small server: it reached a running state without a GPU.
- A quick evaluation: it was running 2 minutes after the clone.
Also tested, in the same area
Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.
Run history
Topics (from GitHub)
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/chart-js)Questions
- Does Chart.js run?
- Yes. Chart.js runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 2 minutes, hitting 3 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test Chart.js?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 7169e65147a4. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test Chart.js?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.09: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does Chart.js take to install?
- 2 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
- Does Chart.js need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing Chart.js?
- 3 things broke in the recorded run, and 3 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- How does Chart.js compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 4 canvas projects Argusic has installed and timed, Chart.js was the 1st fastest to reach a running state, and 4 of 4 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for Chart.js?
- The recorded run is on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.