copycat VS webusb

Check out https://www.snaplet.dev (I'm the founder). We do exactly this.

Testing with product workloads today? If you need to test with production workloads today, check out Snaplet and Postgres.ai. Both are great partners of Supabase.

It’s worth noting that being able to branch production data for testing easily doesn’t mean you should just do it. It poses a significant risk of leaking sensitive user data. You should consider using tools like Snaplet to transform and anonymize sensitive columns.

[disclosure: I'm the founder of Snaplet]

I think there are a lot of different reasons why people may want to use a service like bit.io, but if you want a database with data in it to code against, run tests against, reproduce production related data-bugs, and run e2e tests against then check out https://www.snaplet.dev.

For now, this is very experimental - but it has a lot of potential. If you want to get involved, please reach out to us or the team at [Snaplet(https://www.snaplet.dev/). The work they're doing over at Snaplet is incredible, and we've had a blast collaborating with them.

> WebUSB is actually a W3C open standard.

This is misleading at best. Here’s what the actual spec says <https://wicg.github.io/webusb/>:

> This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track.

It’s an experimental spec by Google (observe the affiliation of the three editors: all Google); Mozilla has adopted a negative position on it <https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb>; WebKit has not remarked upon it.

This is such a lame argument. You want it to be true but have no evidence that it actually is true.

A lot of the Chrome team's "standards" have problems with accessibility, workability on mobile, security[0], privacy[1], or just battery life. Some are neat experiments that are or only will be used in the wild by advertisers to track and identify users.

Because the Safari/WebKit team doesn't have to chase users for revenue like Mozilla does they can afford to be more conservative with what Google "standards" they support. Being able to offer a tighter privacy posture or efficiency is part of the iOS/macOS sales pitch.

[0] https://github.com/WICG/webusb/issues/50

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22387492/google-floc-ad-t...

Limiting it to installed apps still has the problem of users blindly agreeing to something that is fundamentally super dangerous. I don’t believe installing PWAs currently exposes any new security surface, so this would be a significant change, and worse still a persistent hazard with probably no indication of what’s going on when it’s in use. I think there’s still potential in the general concept, but it’d take work and is certainly not ready yet in any browser.

Yes, certain classes are restricted from access via WebUSB for security, https://wicg.github.io/webusb/#protected-interface-classes. But as the note says, it’s about balance: that list is necessary for security, but not sufficient.