Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Chrome/ium support #59

Open
ENT8R opened this issue Apr 27, 2018 · 6 comments
Open

Chrome/ium support #59

ENT8R opened this issue Apr 27, 2018 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@ENT8R
Copy link
Contributor

ENT8R commented Apr 27, 2018

Are there some plans to extend this add-on as a Chrome extension?
This article lists all incompatibilities between Firefox and Chrome extensions: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Chrome_incompatibilities

But I already did some testing with this polyfill: https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill and it works without problems (except that you need to modify the manifest.json a little bit because not all properties are supported by Chrome...)

Or is there a reason why this add-on should not become a Chrome extension?

@rugk rugk added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 27, 2018
@rugk rugk changed the title Add support for Chrome Chrome support Apr 27, 2018
@rugk rugk changed the title Chrome support Chrome/ium support Apr 27, 2018
@rugk
Copy link
Owner

rugk commented Apr 27, 2018

Or is there a reason why this add-on should not become a Chrome extension?

Only that I likely won't adjust design and stuff for it, i.e. do not actively adjust stuff for it and rather only do minimal tests in Chromium.
But I am all for standards, so if the add-on can be adjusted in a sane way to work in Chrome, that's all fine. I would then also publish it there…

As for JS code I would argue to only use polyfills. I.e. E.g. menu is also not supported in Chrome/ium (but the standardized version), but only contextMenu. So there rather than changing everything to contextMenu, one needs to write a (I think) small polyfill, which redirects all calls… I personally never wrote polyfills, but I think that is possible.

And we would maybe need some adjustments so we generate a different ZIP for Chrome/ium, so we don't have to ship that additional (polyfill) JS in the Firefox version.

@rugk
Copy link
Owner

rugk commented Apr 27, 2018

As for the manifest.jsonI think we could even have two versions, one packaged with Chrome/ium and one with Firefox… That file is small and all translations and so on are in other files anyway.

@ENT8R
Copy link
Contributor Author

ENT8R commented Apr 28, 2018

I did some further research and I think we have to drop this idea. In Chrome it is not possible at all to open a popup programmatically which is a huge problem for this add-on as there are quite some actions which depend on this.
For more information see:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=399859
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5576816/8575129

@rugk
Copy link
Owner

rugk commented Apr 28, 2018

Well… we could just leave out support for this. Then we just have no context menus and so on – kinda like version 1.1. right now.

@rugk rugk added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label May 2, 2018
@rugk
Copy link
Owner

rugk commented Apr 14, 2019

BTW https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill may help, but it's likely still a little more to do… (Edit: Noticed this has already been linked above.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants