vitest-webextension-mock
v0.0.7
Published
Mock webextension APIs with vitest functions
Downloads
486
Readme
vitest-webextension-mock
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://
ormoz-extension://
- [ ] Allow user to provide extension ID
- [ ] Make browser configurable so it changes the scheme
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.