Skip to content

RickyMarou/vitest-webextension-mock

Repository files navigation

vitest-webextension-mock

npm version Code coverage

Questions

What should we do with the differences between the specs and the chrome implementation?
For an example, according to the spec, browser.action.setTitle should take

setTitle({title: string, windowId: number, tabId: number})

according to the specs (MDN), but the chrome implementation is (docs):

setTitle({title: string, tabId: number}, callback: Function)

What should we do in such cases?

  • Offer a way for consumers to configure which flavour of the API they want to use?
  • Only do chrome flavour? Only do official spec flavour?

We should for sure look at webextension-polyfill which solves this problem and follow what they do (which is most likely following the spec)

TODO

  • Make extension URL configurable so consumers can control the path returned by browser.runtime.getURL()
    • Make browser configurable so it changes the scheme chrome-extension:// or moz-extension://
    • Allow user to provide extension ID

Docs

The mock functions will try to emulate browser behavior as best they can. For an example:

browser.action.getTitle({windowId: 1, tabId: 1}) 

Will return an error because according to the specs, if both windowId and tabId are supplied, getTitle should return an error.

However, we rely on typescript for parameters null checks:

browser.action.getTitle()

is an invalid call as getTitle expects 1 parameter. The mocked function will not throw if called without a parameter. We recommend you use typescript with @types/webextension-polyfill to catch these errors at build time.

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

License

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Packages

No packages published