As you can see from the code below, I'm checking the contents of manifest.json to get the matches and exclude_matches in my content_scripts option. I think it works as intended, because I'm seeing the action active only in the URLs listed in "matches" property, not in the ones in "exclude_matches". However, this seems to be too error-prone, because I may have to modify the string replacements in regExpFromMatch if I need to update these match patterns in the future. Is this really making the extension inactive or is it just the action in the toolbar? And, in order to avoid the probable need for repetitive refactoring in the future, I'd like to know if there's a simpler, safer, way to achieve this.
chrome.tabs.onUpdated.addListener((tabId, changeInfo, tab) => {
if (changeInfo.status === "complete") {
const {
content_scripts: [{ matches, exclude_matches }],
} = chrome.runtime.getManifest();
const actionEnabled = isActionEnabledInThisURL(
[matches, exclude_matches],
tab.url
);
if (actionEnabled) {
chrome.action.enable(tabId);
} else {
chrome.action.disable(tabId);
}
// *************************************************************
function isActionEnabledInThisURL(contentMatchPatterns, url) {
const [isMatch, isExcludedMatch] = contentMatchPatterns.map(
(urlMatchPattern) =>
regExpFromMatch(urlMatchPattern).some((regExp) => regExp.test(url))
);
return isMatch && !isExcludedMatch;
}
function regExpFromMatch(matchArray) {
return matchArray.map(
(string) =>
new RegExp(string.replace(/\//g, `\/`).replace(/\*/g, ".*"), "g")
);
}
}
});
Related
New to react... Really banging my head against it with this one... I'm trying to figure out how to get a dynamically inserted component to update when the props are changed. I've assigned it to a parent state object but it doesn't seem to re-render. I've read that this is what's supposed to happen.
I was using ReactDOM.unmountComponentAtNode to re-render the specific elements I needed to, but it kept yelling at me with red text.
I need to hide "chat.message" unless the user has the authority to see it (server just sends empty string), but I still need to render the fact that it exists, and reveal it should the user get authentication. I'm using a css transition to reveal it, but I really need a good way to update the chat.message prop easily.
renderChats(uuid){
let userState = this.state.userStates.find(user => {
return user.uuid === uuid;
});
const children = userState.chats.map((chat) => {
let ChatReactElement = this.getChatMarkup(chat.cuid, chat.message, chat.status);
return ChatReactElement;
});
ReactDOM.render(children, document.getElementById(`chats-${this.state.guid}-${uuid}`));
}
getChatMarkup() just returns JSX and inserts Props... I feel like state should be getting passed along here. Even when I use a for-loop and insert the state explicitly, it doesn't seem to re-render on changes.
getChatMarkup(cuid, message, status){
return(
<BasicChatComponent
key={cuid}
cuid={cuid}
message={message}
status={status}
/>
);
}
I attempted to insert some code line this:
renderChats(uuid){
let userState = this.state.userStates.find(user => {
return user.uuid === uuid;
});
const children = userState.chats.map((chat) => {
let ChatReactElement = this.getChatMarkup(chat.cuid, chat.message, chat.status);
if(chat.status.hidden)
this.setState({ hiddenChatRE: [ ...this.state.hiddenChatRE, ChatReactElement ] }); // <== save elements
return ChatReactElement;
});
ReactDOM.render(children, document.getElementById(`chats-${this.state.guid}-${uuid}`));
}
and later in my code:
this.state.hiddenChatRE.every(ReactElement => {
if(ReactElement.key == basicChats[chatIndex].cuid){
ReactElement.props = {
... //completely invalid code
}
}
});
The only response I see here is my ReactDOM.unmountComponentAtNode(); approach...
Can anyone point me in the right direction here?
Although perhaps I should be kicking myself, I read up on how React deals with keys on their components. So there's actually a fairly trivial answer here if anyone comes looking... Just call your render function again after you update the state.
In my case, something like:
this.setState(state =>({
...state,
userStates : state.userStates.map((userstate) => {
if(userstate.uuid == basicChats[chatIndex].uuid) return {
...userstate,
chats: userstate.chats.map((chat) => {
if(chat.cuid == basicChats[chatIndex].cuid){
//
return {
cuid: basicChats[chatIndex].cuid,
message: basicChats[chatIndex].message,
status: basicChats[chatIndex].status
}
}
else return chat;
})
}
else return userstate;
})
}));
and then, elsewhere in my example:
this.state.userStates.map((userstate) => {
this.renderChats(userstate.uuid);
});
Other than the fact that I'd recommend using indexed arrays for this example to cut complexity, this is the solution, and works. This is because even though it feels like you'd end up with duplicates (that was my intuition), the uid on the BasicChatComponent itself makes all the difference, letting react know to only re-render those specific elements.
Using TipTap, I'm trying to avoid adding a <br />, but create a <p></p> instead, with the focus inside that <p>|</p> when the user hit shift-Enter but I can't make it work.
Here's what I did so far:
new (class extends Extension {
keys () {
return {
'Shift-Enter' (state, dispatch, view) {
const { schema, tr } = view.state
const paragraph = schema.nodes.paragraph
console.log(tr.storedMarks)
const transaction = tr.deleteSelection().replaceSelectionWith(paragraph.create(), true).scrollIntoView()
view.dispatch(transaction)
return true
}
}
}
})()
How can I do this?
I don't know if this is still relevant but as I was looking for the same thing, I found two ways to make this work.
NOTE:
I'm using tiptap v2, if that's not a problem, then:
I overrode the HardBreak extension, since it's the one that use the Shift-Enter keybinding. It looks something like;
const CustomHardBreak = HardBreak.extend({
addKeyboardShortcuts() {
return {
"Mod-Enter": () => this.editor.commands.setHardBreak(),
"Shift-Enter": () => this.editor.commands.addNewline(),
};
},
});
And used it like so;
editor = new Editor({
extensions: [
customNewline,
CustomHardBreak,
]
});
Use the default editor command createParagraphNear. E.g this.editor.commands.createParagraphNear()
I tried creating a custom extension from your code and ended up with something similar to the command above, i.e;
export const customNewline = Extension.create({
name: "newline",
priority: 1000, // Optional
addCommands() {
return {
addNewline:
() =>
({ state, dispatch }) => {
const { schema, tr } = state;
const paragraph = schema.nodes.paragraph;
const transaction = tr
.deleteSelection()
.replaceSelectionWith(paragraph.create(), true)
.scrollIntoView();
if (dispatch) dispatch(transaction);
return true;
},
};
},
addKeyboardShortcuts() {
return {
"Shift-Enter": () => this.editor.commands.addNewline(),
};
},
});
And added this as an extension in my editor instance.
PS:
They both work, almost exactly the same, I haven't found a difference yet. But there's somewhat of a 'catch' if you would call it that; Both these methods don't work on empty lines/nodes, a character has to be added before the cursor for it to work, any character, even a space.
In TipTap 2.0 I am able to use this custom extension:
const ShiftEnterCreateExtension = Extension.create({
addKeyboardShortcuts() {
return {
"Shift-Enter": ({ editor }) => {
editor.commands.enter();
return true;
},
};
},
});
To make shift + enter behave like enter.
In my case I actually wanted enter to do something different. So I use prosemirror events to set a ref flag on whether shift was pressed. Than I check that flag under the "Enter" keyboard event -- which could be triggered normally or through the shift + enter extension.
I've been using react-native with redux for a while, and the way i learn to call actions when something change on prop is using the componentWillReceiveProps, but when I use it I need to pass between if's and some times it goes to the wrong if, then I need to add more stuff to prevent it.
Here's an example I have done. I know this is not the best way to do it, but it is what I could think of.
componentWillReceiveProps(newProps) {
if(Object.keys(newProps.selected_product).length > 0) {
if(Object.keys(this.props.current_location).length > 0 || Object.keys(newProps.current_location).length > 0) {
this._handleNextPage(2);
this.props.verifyProductById(newProps.selected_product, newProps.current_location, this.props.token);
} else {
this.props.statusScanner(false);
this._handleNextPage(1);
}
} else if(Object.keys(newProps.historic_product_confirm).length > 0) {
if(newProps.historic_product_confirm.location._id == newProps.current_location._id)
this.props.handleModalConfirmPrice(!this.props.modal_confirmPrice_status)
} else if(newProps.scanResult != "") {
this.props.statusScanner(false);
if(Object.keys(newProps.current_location).length > 0) {
this._handleNextPage(2);
} else {
this._handleNextPage(1);
}
} else {
this._handleNextPage(0);
}
}
What I need is a healthy way to call my actions when the props change.
Edit:
Here i have the full OfferScene and an action file example:
OfferScene:
https://gist.github.com/macanhajc/0ac98bbd2974d2f6fac96d9e30fd0642
UtilityActions:
https://gist.github.com/macanhajc/f10960a8254b7659457f8a09c848c8cf
As mentioned in another answer, componentWillReceiveProps is being phased out, so I would aim for trying to eliminate it where possible. You'll be future-proofing your code and keeping your component logic more declarative and easy to reason about. As someone who has been responsible for (and been frustrated by) lifecycle method abuse like this, here are some things that have helped me.
Remember that when using redux-thunk, along with passing dispatch as the first argument, you can also pass getState as the second. This allows you to access state values in your action logic instead of bringing them into your component's props and adding clutter. Something like:
export const ExampleAction = update =>
(dispatch, getState) => {
const { exampleBool } = getState().ExampleReducer
if (exampleBool) {
dispatch({
type: 'UPDATE_EXAMPLE_STATE',
update
})
}
}
Using async/await in action logic can be a lifesaver when your action depends upon fetched results from an API call:
export const ExampleAction = () =>
async (dispatch, getState) => {
const { valueToCheck } = getState().ExampleReducer
, result = await someAPICall(valueToCheck)
.catch(e => console.log(e))
if (result.length > 0) {
dispatch({
type: 'UPDATE_EXAMPLE_STATE',
update: result
})
}
}
For cases where your component's rendering behavior depends upon certain state values after your state has been updated, I highly recommend reselect. A very basic example would be something like:
component.js
import React, { Component, Fragment } from 'react'
import { connect } from 'react-redux'
import { shouldDisplayItems } from '../selectors'
import MyListviewComponent from './myListview'
class ItemList extends Component {
render() {
const { shouldDisplayItems, items } = this.props
return (
<>
{shouldDisplayItems && <MyListviewComponent items={items} />}
</>
)
}
}
const mapStateToProps = ({ ListItems }) => shouldDisplayItems(ListItems)
export default connect(mapStateToProps)(ItemList)
selectors.js:
(Assuming your ListItems reducer has the params items and visibilityFilter)
import { createSelector } from 'reselect'
export const shouldDisplayItems = createSelector(
[state => state],
({ items, visibilityFilter }) => {
return {
shouldDisplayItems: visibilityFilter && items.length > 0,
items
}
}
)
I should mention that another option would be using higher-order components, but it can be tricky to use this approach before having a good grasp on how to keep too much imperative logic out of your components (I learned this the hard way).
I agree with #AnuragChutani and #Goldy in terms of clarity of the code; break it down some more into more components or functions.
Now after some review of your componentWillReceiveProps function, it is definitely not specific enough to narrow down exactly which prop changes. If any connected redux variable changes, the componentWillReceiveProps function will be invoked each time.
So e.g. if 'token' or 'selected_product' updates, componentWillReceiveProps will be triggered, even though you did not want it to trigger for token updates.
You can use a comparison for a specific variable update in the props.
E.g Using lodash
if(!_.isEqual( nextProps.selected_product, this.props.selected_product ))
// if props are different/updated, do something
Secondly, you can call actions/callbacks in your actions to narrow down navigation.
E.g.
takePicture = (camera, options){
...
//on success
dispatch(handleModalConfirmPrice())
...
}}
On the page that I am testing, a user can have a single currency or multiple currencies (i.e EUR and USD)the currency/currencies will appear in the same div at the top of the page.
If a user has multiple currencies, a tab for each currency will appear further down the page, if a user has only one currency, no tabs will appear (as there is no need for the user to switch tabs).
I am able to test multi currency users by checking to see if the text contained in the header matches the text contained in the currencies tabs.
However, as no tabs appear for a single currency, I'm not sure how to test this.
For example, if I have only a 'EUR' currency, is there a way to do something like
if element(by.className("currencies"))contains 'EUR'
&& doesn't contain 'USD' && doesn't contain 'GBP'
expect element(by.className("tabs").toDisplay.toBeFalsy()
This is the code for the page object file
this.checkCurrency = function(currency) {
var checkBalance = element(by.className("balances"));
checkBalance.getText().then(function (text) {
if (text.indexOf("GBP" && "EUR")>= 0) {
expect(element.all(by.linkText("GBP")).isDisplayed()).toBeTruthy();
console.log("EUR GBP buyer");
}
else if (text.indexOf("GBP" && "USD")>= 0) {
expect(element.all(by.linkText('USD')).isDisplayed()).toBeTruthy();
console.log("USD GBP buyer");
}
else
{
console.log("false");
}
});
};
From your description I'm not quite sure where the failure is. In general you want to keep this kind of logic out of your page object. Your test should understand what state the page should be in and call different functions. I know that's not always possible, but it works out so much better if you can. Here is some general condition advise that should help.
You can catch the success state and a failed state of a promise. Most people use the pass function, but forget about the fail function.
promise.then(passFunction, failFunction)
You can use this in several different ways. If you realize that almost everything in protractor is returning a promise.
Example:
element(by.className("currencies")).getText()
.then(
function(text) {
//check on something
},function(error){
//don't check on something
if(someCondition) {
throw error;
} else {
//the test continues
}
});
You can even do it with and expect
expect(element(by.className("currencies")).getText()).not.toContain("EUR")
.then(
function(passed) {
//check on something
},function(failed){
//don't check on something
if(someCondition) {
throw failed;
} else {
//the test continues
}
});
Or a simple findElement
element(by.className("currencies"))
.then(
function(element) {
//check on something
},function(error){
//don't check on something
if(someCondition) {
throw failed;
} else {
//the test continues
}
});
I've just started building a chrome extension and as I need to display its icon only for specific urls, I used page_action.
I also used an event listening if the url changes and matches my pattern that way to display the icon:
chrome.declarativeContent.onPageChanged.addRules([
{
conditions: [
new chrome.declarativeContent.PageStateMatcher({
pageUrl: { urlContains: 'https://mysite.com/mypage.html' }
})
],
actions: [ new chrome.declarativeContent.ShowPageAction() ]
}
]);
It works fine but when I want to add a filter of the first character of the query, it fails.
The url pattern I want to filter looks like:
https://mysite.com/mypage.html#e123456789
I tried the following but it didn't help:
pageUrl: { urlContains: 'https://mysite.com/mypage.html#e' }
pageUrl: { urlContains: 'https://mysite.com/mypage.html', queryPrefix: '#e' }
pageUrl: { urlContains: 'https://mysite.com/mypage.html', queryPrefix: 'e' }
I think that the issue comes from the hash tag.
Any idea of a workaround ?
The #... part of a URL is called a "reference fragment" (ocassionally referred to as "hash").
Reference fragments are currently not supported in URLFilters, there is already a bug report for this feature: Issue 84024: targetUrlPatterns and URL search/hash component.
If you really want to show the page action depending on the state of the reference fragment, then you could use the chrome.webNavigation.onReferenceFragmentUpdated event instead of the declarativeContent API. For example (adapted from my answer to How to show Chrome Extension on certain domains?; see that answer for the manifest.json to use for testing):
function onWebNav(details) {
var refIndex = details.url.indexOf('#');
var ref = refIndex >= 0 ? details.url.slice(refIndex+1) : '';
if (ref.indexOf('e') == 0) { // Starts with e? show page action
chrome.pageAction.show(details.tabId);
} else {
chrome.pageAction.hide(details.tabId);
}
}
// Base filter
var filter = {
url: [{
hostEquals: 'example.com'
}]
};
chrome.webNavigation.onCommitted.addListener(onWebNav, filter);
chrome.webNavigation.onHistoryStateUpdated.addListener(onWebNav, filter);
chrome.webNavigation.onReferenceFragmentUpdated.addListener(onWebNav, filter);