webextension-polyfill updates - #44951
Conversation
Rob--W
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you update the text to account for mozilla/webextension-polyfill#942 ? There is a small subset of extensions where "148" does not apply, but "152" does.
|
@Rob--W updated re 152 |
Rob--W
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that this might be conflicting with some other PRs, notably #44959 and the older PR at #44149 . In the interest of avoiding duplicate/overlapping work I suggest combining 44149 with this one (this one about 152+148 supersedes the part about 148).
I already approved Oliver's PR, so we could also merge that first, merge/rebase this branch. And then do a final pass for inconsistencies. I spotted at least one inconsistency, the existing claim that devtools doesn't support Promise. That note should be adjusted to state that support was added in 152.
|
This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. |
Co-authored-by: Rob Wu <rob@robwu.nl> Co-authored-by: rebloor <git@sherpa.co.nz>
| Firefox also supports the `chrome.*` namespace for APIs that are compatible with Chrome, primarily to assist with [porting](https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/porting-a-google-chrome-extension/). However, using the `browser.*` namespace is preferred. In addition to being the proposed standard, `browser.*` uses promises—a modern and convenient mechanism for handling asynchronous events. | ||
|
|
||
| Only in the most trivial extensions is namespace likely to be the only cross-platform issue to be addressed. Therefore, it's rarely, if ever, helpful to address this issue alone. The best approach is to address this with asynchronous event handling. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[mdn-linter] reported by reviewdog 🐶
…-support-for-the-browser-namespace
…he-browser-namespace Issue 44114 chrome support for the browser namespace
|
@Rob--W includes changes from #44149, and I've made updates, so everything should now be accurate and consistent. I'm wondering whether, when we can be reasonably assured that most new cross-browser development will target the versions supporting the browser and promises, we should review the three articles to eliminate any confusion or uncertainty about which one to consult. |
Description
These changes are designed to emphasize that the webextension-polyfill is now only needed when an extension want to target Chrome 147 or earlier.
Related issues and pull requests
Related changes to the Extension Workshop content in mozilla/extension-workshop#2401.
Fixes #44114 (with content from Issue-44114-Chrome-support-for-the-browser-namespace)