Back when FireBug worked, you could write messages to Console using HTTP headers beginning with something like "X-Wf-1-1-1". This allowed a scripting language such as PHP or ASP to output debug info.
Now that Firebug is defunct, can this still be done in some way?
Specifically, I'm trying to use Console for ASP-Classic debugging. I want ASP to be able to spit out a variable value to Console when the page loads.
(Related: https://github.com/dmeagor/ClassicASP-FirePHP )
The answer was that I needed the FirePHP Firefox add-on installed
There a link on this page: https://github.com/firephp/firephp-for-firefox-devtools Hopefully out of Beta soon...?
You may have to first go to about:config and set xpinstall.signatures.required to false
Looking at the ASP code, I can see how this might easily be adapted for other languages. :-)
Related
I have a web-based project. I build it. The port used is 8080.
In chrome, safari, firefox, the project works fine. No errors in the console.
However, on internet explorer 11, the page is blank, but the icon is loaded, as is the HTML, which I can see in the page source.
The page looks like this:
The errors in the developer tools of IE11 outputs this:
I see a compiler error for some missing semi-colons. However, the error is on line 100,000, which makes me think it is in the compiled file. This error is not in other browsers.
This might be related to some JS syntax issues. If bundle includes some modern features of JS, it is supported by modern browsers, but not but IE. So IE cannot parse it correctly.
You can open the error in sources to check if there is some modern syntax construction.
In case this is the problem, you need to setup transpiler options to support IE. Most likely it's babel settings/browserlist.
This article will guide you to resolve the issue:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/browsers/cannot-access-websites
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/forum/all/ie-11-doesnt-preload-while-preloading-with-500/e5d8611d-1a6f-4d2d-beba-4cbb214bd99e
May be you need to change the permissions in IE 11 if the site is not secure
https://www.support.com/how-to/how-to-fix-site-is-not-secure-in-internet-explorer-12900
I just ran into a problem, While I was updating the js and css files for my website on a server, I do not see the immediate change. However, if I were to edit these files on a local computer or go on incognito mode on chrome, I see the change right away.
let's say I have:
div{width:100px}
after I change it to div{width:200px}, when I pop open the developer tool, it still reads div{width:100px}.
I feel like I need to clear something for the broswer, any explanation for this?
Check the caching headers you are using for static resources. The browser is likely using a cached version.
I have been given a task of toggling nearly 200 users' permissions in an admin. I have access to the database, and I'm sure I can do this in SQL but I'm curious to find out how to do it this way as well, plus I suspect it will be less work because I don't have to study the SQL that's going on and I know exactly what to do after I get access to the browser instance and know how to execute javascript programmatically in the context of the web page open.
I basically want to provide a list of urls which will open ( 195 ) and then execute javascript to toggle checkboxes, then submit the form.
As I stated, I want to use firefox or chrome and I'm on linux.
This is basically what greasemonkey does.
Or, if you can do it all while staying on the same page, you can also just type in arbitrary JS code by hand in the firebug console or its Chrome equivalent. This could work if combined with some iframe trickery.
If you use Chrome, it has built in support for user automation scripts: http://userscripts.wikidot.com/, http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scripts
I think a cleaner solution would be for you to figure out what is the url and the parameters to pass to do what you need. Then you can just use curl to make those requests.
I use CJS Chrome extension. I add a short script take loads a script from my localhost server and executes it. The executed script can also send results back to the server.
Is there a version of GreaseMonkey that prints ALL errors to the console, like if the UserScript was a real JavaScript? For example syntax errors?
I think the preference (about:config) javascript.options.showInConsole may control this. See Mozilla's tips on Setting up an extension development environment. It's not the same thing, but since Greasemonkey is an extension running in chrome, I think it's relevant.
I'm tyring to get phonegap up and running on blackberry storm (9530 simulator). I had been testing my webapp from withing BB's built in browser, and it was looking ok, but then it totally bit once I tried to look at the some code from within phonegap, even though I was pointing phonegap to the same url (I hadn't yet gotten to the point of running code locally on the device).
I tried a test case on google and got similiar results. see below. I suspect that I'm missing something basic here. I would have expect both images to be nearly identical.
Browser
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530WebGoogle.jpg
Phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530PgGoogle.jpg
[Update]
To shed some light on what is happening, I ran the browser and the embedded browser (phonegap) against the W3 mobile web acid test: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobile-test/
I definitely notice differences between the two, but I don't yet know the 'why' and the 'how-to-address'.
Acid via built-in browser
(source: eleganttechnologies.com)
BTW - I ran this earlier today and got a couple more green square than just now.
Acid via browser embedded into phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBb9530PgAcid.jpg
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about phonegap, but have a pretty good theory. By default the embedded browser control on BlackBerry uses an older version of the rendering engine than the BlackBerry browser itself does.
At the BlackBerry developer conference last year, a talk was given about this, and there's an undocumented option to use the newer rendering engine. \
The option ID is 17000 (yes, a magic number, which could change, use at your own risk etc), and should be set to true. Not sure how you'd pass this option through phonegap (I'm not familiar with the toolkit) but using the BlackBerry APIs it's something like:
BrowserContent content;
...
content.getRenderingOptions().setProperty(RenderingOptions.CORE_OPTIONS_GUID, 17000, true);
I don't know the specifics of the browsers you are using, but I do know that most of the big sites will detect your OS + browser combination to decide what HTML to show you.
If Google is seeing a different user agent, you might get a generic mobile version of the HTML instead os the Blackberry specific HTML you get for the built in browser.
If you have access to a web server, try hitting it with both browser setups and see if there is any difference in the log file. That might tell you something interesting.
As we can see in your Acid tests...
One browser (the built-in one) is reporting correctly as a BlackBerry9530, and the other (phonegap) is not presenting the user-agent ["Testing with ."].
In this case, Google is providing you with the default view of their homepage, whereas when you are reporting yourself as a BlackBerry device, you will get the BlackBerry specific rendering.
By the sounds of things, using phonegap is removing the default user-agent (most probably because it's not recognising your device). As phonegap is open-source, the best bet is to get in there, and debug it and find out what happens with the user-agent when the http requests leave the device and track it back from there.
Maybe one browser has capabilities that another one does not?
Hm. By looking at the screenshot I would say that the second page is probably missing some resources. It may be missing some images, scripts and the CSS files, which would explain different l&f. Knowing how Blackberry Browser Field API works, I would guess that the implementation that uses the BrowserField was not done correctly. Just my guess. In addition to that, when the browser field is initialized the caller needs to configure it properly by enabling the appropriate browser features - scripts, styles etc. Again, the API is done in a very weird way, I have gotten myself into this trap once. When setting the options, you cannot just create one mask (like CSS | WML | SCRIPT) and make one call. Options are numeric and, I believe, non-overlapping - but you still need to call the API for setting each option independently.
Also the way asynchronous loading of the resources for BrowserField takes time to understand.
Just my $0.02.