webextension-polyfill VS OpenAPI-Specification

Porting this extension to Firefox should be relatively straightforward using the webextension polyfill: https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill

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...

best is to use https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill

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.

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

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

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...

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.

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.

And I'll be using the OpenAPI Pet Store spec file as an example.

I saw your sibling comment about "keeping it simple," however that is a bit counter to "generates OpenAPI specifications" since those for sure are not limited to just application/json request/response bodies

I wanted to draw your attention to "normal" POST application/x-www-form-urlencoded <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...> and its multipart/form-data friend <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...>

The latter is likely problematic, but the former is in wide use still, including, strangely enough, the AWS API, although some of their newer services do have an application/json protocol

I know that's a lot of words, but the tl;dr would be that if you want your extension to be application/json only, then changing the description to say "OpenAPI specifications for application/json handshakes" would help the consumer be on the same page with your goals

Since FastAPI is based on OpenAPI, at this point you can also use the automatically generated docs. There are multiple options, and two are included by default. Try them out by accessing the following URLs:

This approach requires a constant context switch and is clearly not productive. Here, the OpenAPI Specification can help; you might already have it, but is it scalable? In this article, we’ll learn how to create an OpenAPI Specification document that is readable, scalable, and follows the principle of extension without modifying the existing document.

Phil Sturgeon, who along with Ben Hutton and Henry Andrews from the JSON Schema community, helped drive the push to full JSON Schema Draft 2020-12 compliance, has written a blog post for the official OpenAPIs.org website on how to transition your OAS documents from v3.0.x to v3.1.0.

In this article, we will be learning how to document API written in Node.js using a tool called Swagger. Swagger allows you to describe the structure of your APIs so that machines can read them. The ability of APIs to describe their own structure is the root of all awesomeness in Swagger. Why is it so great? Well, by reading our API’s structure, swagger can automatically build beautiful and interactive API documentation. It can also automatically generate client libraries for your API in many languages and explore other possibilities like automated testing. Swagger does this by asking our API to return a YAML or JSON that contains a detailed description of your entire API. This file is essentially a resource listing of our API which adheres to OpenAPI Specifications.

You may encounter APIs described as RESTful that do not meet these criteria. This is often the result of bottom-up coding, where top-down design should have been used. Another thing to watch out for is the absence of a schema. There are alternatives, but OpenAPI is a common choice with good tools support. If you don't have a schema, you can create one by building a Postman collection.

The principle behind the OpenAPI Specification (OAS – the industry’s most popular API specification format) is similar. It’s supposed to act as a blueprint for describing RESTful APIs.

OpenAPI 3.1 supports webhooks. It's not widely supported yet by implementations, but it's definitely there. https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/main/examples/v3.1/webhook-example.yaml

The Fastly API is huge. We have lots of customers who want to interact with it using their chosen programming language but our small set of manually maintained clients was not sufficient to handle the job of our ever-evolving API. We needed a way to scale up our API client support, and OpenAPI was the answer.