E.g. browser.browserAction.enable(...).then(...) now works as expected.
Removed a Promise.resolve() because that is the default.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 4Shxtn0rjYH
- Add `envType` to BaseContext.
- Pass an explicit envType to all `registerSchemaAPI` invocations.
- The factories passed to `registerSchemaAPI` will be split up later, so
that content scripts (`content_child`) and addon pages can share
common implementations.
- The factories that implement the addon API will also be split up,
to separate code running in the main process (`addon_parent`) from
code running in a child process (`addon_child`).
- Remove the use of a hardcoded list of `namespaces` from ProxyContext.
Now `envType` is used to specify whether an API should be activated.
MozReview-Commit-ID: Jiff8HIwG92
ExtensionContext in Extension.jsm has |extension| as an instance member,
so use it instead of passing |extension| to registerSchemaAPI's
callback.
And to make sure that this pattern also works in content processes, move
the |extension| member to BaseContext.
MozReview-Commit-ID: BgsGGCPQxJR
ExtensionContext in Extension.jsm has |extension| as an instance member,
so use it instead of passing |extension| to registerSchemaAPI's
callback.
And to make sure that this pattern also works in content processes, move
the |extension| member to BaseContext.
MozReview-Commit-ID: BgsGGCPQxJR
This version addresses some popup sizing bugs, and also a few other issues I
ran into when debugging Blake's problems:
* The standalone popup needs a max width of 800px for Chrome compatibility,
which is wider than our default max width.
* I added a flex attribute to our browser so that it fills the entire space
of the slide-in panel. This is only necessary for browsers with content
that is shorter than the height of the panel when it gets its desired
width, but becomes longer when it doesn't, so it didn't show up in my
initial tests.
* I also added an extra pixel to the width calculations, since I noticed that
a lot of single lines of text were unexpectedly wrapping without it. I'll
look into this more in a follow-up bug.
I also added some comments, and renamed a couple of variables, where things
seemed unclear.
The test changes are mostly just updates to older browser action tests to use
newer helpers, rather than ad-hoc events, to open/close/click the widgets. A
few tests also needed updates to explicitly close the panel when they were
done with it.
This version addresses some popup sizing bugs, and also a few other issues I
ran into when debugging Blake's problems:
* The standalone popup needs a max width of 800px for Chrome compatibility,
which is wider than our default max width.
* I added a flex attribute to our browser so that it fills the entire space
of the slide-in panel. This is only necessary for browsers with content
that is shorter than the height of the panel when it gets its desired
width, but becomes longer when it doesn't, so it didn't show up in my
initial tests.
* I also added an extra pixel to the width calculations, since I noticed that
a lot of single lines of text were unexpectedly wrapping without it. I'll
look into this more in a follow-up bug.
I also added some comments, and renamed a couple of variables, where things
seemed unclear.
The test changes are mostly just updates to older browser action tests to use
newer helpers, rather than ad-hoc events, to open/close/click the widgets. A
few tests also needed updates to explicitly close the panel when they were
done with it.
The base .eslintrc is essentially a merge of the root Toolkit .eslintrc and
the devtools .eslintrc, with some minor changes to match our prevalent style.
For the most enforces the coding styles that we've been using most
consistently. There are a couple of significant differences, though:
* The rule for opening brace alignment can only be applied globally, and
doesn't make exceptions for top-level functions. I chose to turn it on, and
change the brace style of existing top-level functions that violated it,
since the rule seemed worth using, and that's the direction most Toolkit JS
code has been headed anyway.
* The rule for switch/case statements requires an added indentation level for
case statements. Most of our switch statements did not use an extra level
of indentation, and I initially wrote the rule to enforce that style, until
I came across case statements that used blocks, and required the extra
indentation level for sanity.
