google-api-javascript-client
uBlock
google-api-javascript-client | uBlock | |
---|---|---|
17 | 2,992 | |
3,062 | 43,126 | |
0.9% | - | |
2.5 | 9.9 | |
5 months ago | 10 days ago | |
CSS | JavaScript | |
Apache License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
google-api-javascript-client
-
Google API going crazy in Angular
Sometimes different JavaScript libraries are needed for in-browser vs node.js. I think that the npm googleapis package is specifically for node.js, and for in-browser use you need to use https://github.com/google/google-api-javascript-client
-
Cryptee + Google login issues
Incorrect, twice. We're not asking you to trust us, you can verify it yourself, Google Auth's scripts are open source. Here and here. They're also available in our repo as well.
-
Send Emails with Gmail API
API client for JavaScript
-
“UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3
One interesting consequence of this is that Google's own javascript api client will no longer work with MV3 and there are apparently no plans to ever make it work.
See https://github.com/google/google-api-javascript-client/issue...
So effectively this means extensions on MV3 can't easily access Google apis, which is quite unfortunate since Chrome extensions in particular made Google authentication super straightforward (piggybacking off of chrome's built-in google authentication). If someone knows a better way I'd love to hear it.
I believe the reason that the current incarnation of the javascript library won't work is because it modifies the dom to add script tags to fetch and run the api library (or components of it), which is specifically what MV3 will disallow AFAIK.
-
What is the best way to get a quick response from the developers of a Google Library?
What I want to do is contact the developers of this library. I looked at the google-api-client-libary for Javascript and thought about raising an issue due to the insufficient documentation, but the owners seem to be very slow in responding. How do I contact the developers and perhaps get a response in 1-2 days or at most a week?
-
How does pop-up window based Google OAuth work?
Have you read the documentation and source? If so, maybe include the part that is confusing to you so people can help explain that specifically.
-
using google-api-javascript-client (gapi) with no authentication [code example]
Here is an example of using Google APIs Client Library for browser JavaScript, aka gapi with no authentification. The Google Api we are calling here is Calendar API.
-
How to use Google API Client Library for JavaScript (gapi) with async/await and Vue 3?
I have a Vue 3 / Quasar / TypeScript app that is using the Google API Client Library for JavaScript (also known as gapi).
-
How Do I Call An Authenticated HTTP Trigger Google Cloud Function Via A Next.js (with Typescript) App?
I know that this is problem with server side rendering in my Next.js app and people recommend using a client side package like this https://github.com/google/google-api-javascript-client. But google-api-javascript-client doesn't have any documentation on authenticating with a .json credentials file instead of an API KEY which I do not have.
-
Best strategy for handling next.js + Google UserAuth + Google API's?
I've authenticated the user using Firebase successfully, giving me a user object to play with, however, to ping the Calendar API, I'm using the gapi library. This means, though, that I have to do the whole OAuth2 cycle twice - once to 'log in' the user to the application, and once to 'authorise' the application to use the user's token to use the Calendar API.
uBlock
- Apr 24th is JavaScript Naked Day – Browse the web without JavaScript
- Mobile Ad Blocker Will No Longer Stop YouTube's Ads
-
Some notes on Firefox's media autoplay settings in practice as of Firefox 124
Check out uBlock Origin's per site switches [1]
[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...
-
Brave's AI assistant now integrates with PDFs and Google Drive
If ads, in particular on YouTube, are the problem, anything Chromium-based is probably only going to get worse and worse (see [1] and [2]). So that basically leaves you with Firefox and Safari.
I work for Mozilla (speaking for myself, of course), so I'll leave you to guess which I'd recommend :P
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/googles-widely-oppos...
-
X.org Server Clears Out Remnants for Supporting Old Compilers
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
Or if on mobile, it is well worth it to look up adblock options for the browser you use.
-
Mozilla thinks Apple, Google, Microsoft should play fair
What are the compelling advantages of Chrome nowadays?
Chrome is working to limit the capabilities of ad blockers:
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/11/chrome-pushes...
Whereas a compelling advantage of Firefox is that uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
Advertising networks have often been vectors for malware. Using an ad blocker is an important security measure. Even the FBI recommends ad blockers:
https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising
https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624
-
Brave Leo now uses Mixtral 8x7B as default
> It allows for 30,000 dynamic rules
That is not what we mean by dynamic filters. From https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-fi...
> However, to support more frequent updates and user-defined rules, extensions can add rules dynamically too, without their developers having to upload a new version of the extension to the Chrome Web Store.
What Chrome is talking about is the ability to specify rules at runtime. What critics of Manifest V3 are talking about is not the ability to dynamically add rules (although that can be an issue), it is the ability to add dynamic rules -- ie rules that analyze and rewrite requests in the style of the blockingWebRequest permission.
It's a little deceptive to claim that the concerns here are outdated and to point to vague terminology that sounds like it's correcting the problem, but on actual inspection turns out to be entirely separate functionality from what the GP was talking about.
> Giving this ability to extensions can slow down the browser for the user. These ads can still be blocked through other means.
This is the debate; most of the adblocking community disagrees with this assertion. uBO maintains a list of some common features that are already not possible to support in Chrome ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... ) and has written about features that are not able to be supported via Chrome's current V3 API ( https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... ). Of particular note are filtering for large media elements (I use this a lot on mobile Firefox, it's great for reducing page size), and top-level filtering of domains/fonts.
- uBlock Origin – 1.55.0
-
In 2024, please switch to Firefox
> "Its happened before"
> That's not an argument
It's a subheading to "2. Browser engine monopoly". The subsection's purpose is describing how bad things were during the IE monopoly to reinforce that it's something to be avoided.
> in fact you could counter-argue that IE left a lot of technical debt
That would be agreeing with the article, unless I understand what you mean.
> On top of that, the internet was very different back then.
In a way that now makes it harder for truly new competing engines to pop up due to increased complexity of the web.
> I'm still not convinced, why would I change my browser?
The points made in the article are:
* Increased privacy, opposed to willingly giving your data to an ad-tech company
* Helps avoid a browser engine monopoly which would effectively let Google dictate web standards
* It’s fast and has a nice user interface
Onto which I'd add:
* Content blockers work best on Firefox (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...), doubly so when Manifest V3 rolls out
* Allows more customization of interface and home page
* UX improvements, like the clutter-free reader mode, aren't vetoed to protect search revenue as with Chrome (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675467)
-
Ask HN: Is Firefox team too small to do serious security tests?
Advertising networks are vectors for malware:
https://www.cisecurity.org/insights/blog/malvertising
https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising
https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...
So if you're concerned about security then you want the browser with the best ad blocker.
uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
What are some alternatives?
vue-googleapis-examples - vue-googleapis plugin examples of usage
VideoAdBlockForTwitch - Blocks Ads on Twitch.tv.
google-api-dotnet-client - Google APIs Client Library for .NET
Spotify-Ad-Blocker - EZBlocker - A Spotify Ad Blocker for Windows
dotnet-samples - .NET samples for Google Workspace APIs
bypass-paywalls-chrome - Bypass Paywalls web browser extension for Chrome and Firefox.
google-api-php-client - A PHP client library for accessing Google APIs
duckduckgo-privacy-extension - DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials browser extension for Firefox, Chrome.
google-api-ruby-client - REST client for Google APIs
ClearUrls
example-chrome-extension - Example Chrome Extension - open source examples for Chrome extension APIs
AdNauseam - AdNauseam: Fight back against advertising surveillance