testing-playground
webextension-polyfill
testing-playground | webextension-polyfill | |
---|---|---|
1 | 18 | |
771 | 2,543 | |
0.5% | 0.9% | |
4.7 | 4.7 | |
11 months ago | 3 days ago | |
JavaScript | JavaScript | |
MIT License | Mozilla Public License 2.0 |
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.
testing-playground
-
It's time to port your extension to Firefox
That's actually strange to read because right now I'm following a github issue which seems to imply the opposite :/ https://github.com/testing-library/testing-playground/pull/327#issuecomment-778046309
webextension-polyfill
-
Show HN: Chrome Reaper
Porting this extension to Firefox should be relatively straightforward using the webextension polyfill: https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill
-
Show HN: OpenAPI DevTools – Chrome ext. that generates an API spec as you browse
Firefox maintain a library for unified extension API https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill
Their type definition for HAR request isn't exported https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/blob/mast...
-
can you convert a simple firefox addon to be used with chrome?
best is to use https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill
-
Browser Extension with Blazor WASM - Cross-Browser Compatibility
The Browser Extension Working Group at W3.org proposes the web standards based on the Chrome extension manifest, which supports all web browsers. Based on that proposal, Mozilla has released the Browser Extension Polyfill library that supports the modern promise pattern instead of callback. Therefore, if you import this polyfill library, theoretically, your Chrome extension quickly turns into the browser extension that runs on multiple browser engines.
-
IWTL how to make simple chrome extensions.
And the biggest tip that i received late. Use Typescript type by Mozilla to make your development much easier(autocomplete, inline docs etc): https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill
- Show HN: Plasmo – a framework for building modern Chrome extensions
-
It’s Like GPT-3 but for Code–Fun, Fast, and Full of Flaws
I've written extensions before and Firefox has a very good polyfill [0] that makes it quite easy to write extensions for all browsers. It does get a bit trickier if you also want to incorporate TypeScript [1] or React however.
[0] https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill
[1] https://github.com/Lusito/webextension-polyfill-ts
-
Ask HN: Browser-extension creators, how do you write for multiple browsers?
I used WebExtension polyfill[0] when adapting my FF addon to Chrome and admittedly all the intricate differences between APIs still costed me half a day of work.
I managed to have it done with only a few places where I branch on navigator.vendor, but If I wanted to ship different versions to AMO and CWS, I'd make use of something like DefinePlugin[1] for webpack to include/exclude code based on build target.
[0] https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill/
[1] https://github.com/webpack/docs/wiki/list-of-plugins#definep...
-
Creating a browser extension for Safari and Chrome
Initially I created wrapper functions to convert Chrome functions that require callback to return promise instead. The better approach, as I found out later, is probably to use webextension-polyfill from Mozilla and its types.
-
Firefox Addons Unable to Update, Undisclosed AMO Issues
I mean, the browser apis are close (and Mozilla still has much better documentation) but there are a LOT of edges cases where behavior diverges.
Frankly - I'm a little peeved that Optional permissions in Firefox are STILL broken - The prompt can only be triggered in response to a user action, and Firefox blows the fuck up if you put a promise anywhere in between the user click and the call to the api. Which is hugely ironic, since Mozilla is the one pushing to move all the webext APIs to be promise based (and provides a nice helpful library for Chrome/Edge/Safari support: https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill) which... doesn't work on their platform. Doubly ironic, since the result is that most FF extensions just ask for more permissions up front, which is exactly the opposite of what you'd want in the "secure/private" world Mozilla claims they're pushing towards.
What are some alternatives?
DOMPurify - DOMPurify - a DOM-only, super-fast, uber-tolerant XSS sanitizer for HTML, MathML and SVG. DOMPurify works with a secure default, but offers a lot of configurability and hooks. Demo:
esbuild-react-chrome-extension - Simple chrome extension with React and Typescript, bundled by esbuild
UT-Registration-Plus - This Chrome Extension improves the course registration experience at UT Austin by presenting more information to students on the Course Catalog! 50,000+ peak Users!
browser-extension-svelte - A simple cross-browser extension made with Svelte
pangu.js - Paranoid text spacing in JavaScript
uBlock-Safari - uBlock Origin - An efficient blocker for Chromium, Firefox, and Safari. Fast and lean.
axe-core - Accessibility engine for automated Web UI testing
plasmo - 🧩 The Browser Extension Framework
jest-dom - :owl: Custom jest matchers to test the state of the DOM
webext-redux - A set of utilities for building Redux applications in Web Extensions.
proscriptls - A WAM-based Javascript implementation of Prolog with DOM builtins and debugger.
browser-ext-react-esbuild - Browser extension implemented in TypeScript & React and built by esbuild for Chrome, Safari and possibly Mozilla Firefox