I have 2 extensions which need to have a specific order on a sitecollection. I already tried setting the in ClientSideInstance.xml and also in Tenant Wide Extensions list.
Do you know other ways to order the rendering of the extensions?
Thank you!
Unfortunately not. There is a parameter in the manifiest.json file, that should allow you which extension should load before, however, it doesn't work.
Some solutions you may try:
One of the extension to leverage the DynamicDataProvider spfx resource, and make the other spfx extension to use the subscrided data.
One of the extension injects some code when it is loaded in the page, like addign an extra class to the body class, as extYYY-loaded. The other extension is monitoring the body attributes using a mutationObserver, and triggers in as soon as the atribute appears.
Related
When submitting updates for our extension, we receive the following message with rejection from the Chrome store:
"To have your item reinstated, please ensure:
The purpose of the extension is clear to users; and
The extension either limits its functionality to a narrow focus area of subject matter or to a narrow browser function.
To serve multiple purposes with your extensions, please package each purpose as a separate extension."
Does anyone know the criteria used when determining if the purpose is clear or if the extension is trying to do too much? Our extension is used to demonstrate metrics more conveniently that our clients would normally go to our webpage to see, so it shows a few different but very related items (all of which fit the central theme of showing connected metrics).
Check the Chrome Extension Quality Guideline:
Extensions Quality Guidelines
An extension must have a single purpose that is narrow and
easy-to-understand. Do not create an extension that requires users to
accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier
and a news headline aggregator, or downloads a local executable. If
two pieces of functionality are clearly separate, they should be put
into two different extensions, and users should have the ability to
install and uninstall them separately. For example, functionality that
displays product ratings and reviews, but also injects ads into web
pages, should not be bundled into a single extension. Similarly,
toolbars that provide a broad array of functionality or entry points
into services are better delivered as separate extensions, so that
users can select the services they want.
This is further explained in the FAQS page answering these questions:
Why did Google launch a “single purpose” Chrome extensions policy?
Where can I find the “single purpose” policy?
What does “single purpose” actually mean?
We have created a Chrome Extension that is a companion to web sites that we host for our customers. These web sites are hosted under our domain name and interact with the extension using external messaging and relying on the sites being configured in the manifest similar to the following (abcdefg.com is a ficticious domain name):
"externally_connectable": {
"matches": [ "http://*.abcdefg.com/*", "https://*.abcdefg.com/*"]
}
This works great in these cases. However, we have a subset of customers that prefer to host the website themselves under their own domain. The problem is that we do not want to update the extension manifest for the published extension to include all of these sites.
Is there any option of distributing a version of the extension (on Windows) where the "externally_connectable" site list can be set upon installation?
Thanks to kzahel for highlighting the obstacles I was facing and thanks to wOxxOm for providing a solution that will work.
Rather than trying to find a way to override the "externally_connectable" matches configuration upon installation, we found the easiest alternative was to avoid external messaging and use messaging via a content script instead.
The following is a copy of the solution posted above by wOxxOm:
chrome extension - alternative to externally_connectable?
Unfortunately there's no way to do this. You'll need to create a custom extension for every customer with their own domain name. Luckily, there is an API for updating the extension, so you would be able to at least update multiple extensions without too much difficulty. However, the 20 extension limit per account would be a little annoying. I think you can get more extension allowed per account by creating a publishing group and assigning the extensions there.
You could if you are willing to have customers install this in developer mode. That would bypass the 20-extension limit.
I'm trying to make an extension that is able to find a specific resource loaded by the page, filtering by name and downloading it. The reason I want to do this is because I usually go to the network tab in the developer tools, filter the requests/responses, for example, looking for one with the word "foobar" in its name, and open the link in a new tab so I can download it (it's an xml file).
I was wondering if this could be automated with an extension, even if the word used to filter is hardcoded.
I don't have any experience with chrome extensions, so I wondered if this could be done or if it's just not possible with the devtools api. In case it could be done, if you could give me some guidelines on how to make it I would really appreciate it.
Thanks!
There are several ways to access the information you need in an extension.
You can write a Dev Tools extension. In that case, you have access to chrome.devtools.network API which will provide you that information.
This requires you to open Dev Tools and interact with your own UI there (such as an extra tab in Dev Tools).
You can go low-level and use chrome.debugger API to attach to a page like Dev Tools would. It's a complex topic, I'm just pointing you in that direction.
Since you rely only on filtering by name, not response itself, you can use chrome.webRequest API to intercept network requests and log those that interest you for processing. This is probably simplest to do.
I have a Chrome extension that simply contains a series of content scripts that change an existing page.
This extension is meant to be shared with other users.
But on top of that extension, I want to add more functionality, create another "layer" that will be enabled only to me. And this layer should be able to call methods from that extension.
Is there a way to create this layer as a second extension, but make it somehow reference the other and access its methods? I don't want to copy/paste code and have to update everything twice when necessary.
Is there any good reason why I can't use two of them together?
browser_action
page_action
app
I can't think why single extension can't use browser and page specific actions together. Why should I have to write single extension for each action ...
For a browser that boasts about its simplicity I believe that is the clearest explanation. To prevent clutter.
Packaged Apps is the easiest to explain as they are basically an alternative to Hosted Apps for developers that don't wish to host a service or wish to make their app fully integrated in to Chrome and/or work offline. However, since packaged apps are bundled as extensions this prevents them from adding anything to the browser's chrome since hosted apps don't have this ability.
Regarding the action choice, I can only imagine this restriction is to help prevent extensions from overcrowding the address bar and the toolbar with duplication.
In a lot of cases using badges and the onClicked event correctly can replicate a lot of the functionality of page actions in browser actions while using a combination of content scripts and message passing to trigger changes.
The StumbleUpon extension rotates its browser action's behavior depending on whether or not its toolbar is currently displaying.