I am pretty new on browser-sync
Lets say I have a URL (www.dominos.com) that I need to perform testing. Can I pass this URL and do the browser compatibility testing on different browsers Or this is a tool only for developers
Browsersync is not a browser compatibility tester, it's a development tool that among other things (this is where the name comes from) synchronizes the across multiple screens.
I suspect you got it mixed up with BrowserStack, which is a (paid) browser tester and which you'll find pretty straight forward - you just paste in the URL.
Related
I have a problem at my job.
I am totally dependent on a website which must certainly date from the eighties ...
In one of the web pages, there is a link to download an excel file (xls). Let's say for example http://example.excel.xls
In this file, there are hyperlinks to other files (sometimes i think the death penalty is a good thing! ^^).
These links are relative :'( (for example \myfile.pdf)
Internet explorer, strangely, are correcting these links by transforming them in absolute path (http://example.myfile.pdf)
Other browsers (chrome, firefox, even the old edge) don't do it natively. By clicking on the link, we arrive in the local cache, where of course there arenot my files ...
I will soon have to remove IE from computers.
I had considered sending a bombshell on the administrators of this website, but afraid of legal repercussions :)
Is it possible, via settings, an addon or whatever, to make one of the browsers behave in the same way as IE?
I am very grateful for the help you will give me
You had asked,"Is it possible, via settings, an addon or whatever, to make one of the browsers behave in the same way as IE?"
I suggest you make a test with the MS Edge (Chromium) browser.
The MS Edge (Chromium) browser comes with the IE mode feature.
IE mode on Microsoft Edge makes it easy to use all of the sites your organization needs in a single browser. It uses the integrated Chromium engine for modern sites, and it uses the Trident MSHTML engine from Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) for legacy sites.
To configure IE mode, I suggest you refer to Configure IE mode policies. You can refer to the document and configure the necessary policies to enable the IE mode.
It can help you to load your legacy site in the Edge browser using the IE mode which can help you to fix the said issue.
I have read several articles on feature detection and that it is more reliable than browser detection because browsers lie.
I couldn't find any information on why they lie. Does anyone know the reason why they would do that?
As far as I understand it, Webmasters do browser sniffing to find the capabilities of a browser and limit what they send to the browser. If a browser lies about it's capabilities they will receive more from the webmaster, you can read more:
http://farukat.es/journal/2011/02/499-lest-we-forget-or-how-i-learned-whats-so-bad-about-browser-sniffing
http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
The reason is simple:
Because web sites look at the user agent string and make assumptions about the browser, which are then invalid when the browser is updated to a new version.
This has been going on almost since the begining of the web. Browser vendors don't want their new versions to break the web, so they tweak the UA string to fool the code on existing sites.
Ultimately, if everyone used the UA string responsibly and updated their sites whenever new browser versions come out, then browsers wouldn't need to lie. But you have to admit, that's asking quite a lot.
Feature detection works better because when a new browser version comes out with that feature, the detection will pick it up automatically without the either browser needing to do anything special nor the site owner.
Of course, there are times when feature detection doesn't work perfectly -- eg maybe if a feature exists but has bugs in a particular browser. In that case, yes, you may want to do browser detection as a fall-back. But in most cases, feature detection is a much better option.
Another more modern reason is to just avoid demands to install mobile apps (where product owners contol what I can and can't do with content. No thanks!).
Today Reddit started to block viewing subreddits in case they detect a mobile browser in UserAgent so I had to change it just to be able to view content.
Do browser plug-ins, such as the Yahoo toolbar or others, have the ability to set cookies on multiple domains as the user browses the web? Does the browser expose the necessary access to do this to a plug-in? If this varies across browsers, that would be helpful to know as well.
Thanks!
Cookies are stored in files and real plugins (i.e. ones using NPAPI rather than the browser's addon/extension engine) can read/write files. Hence, it's possible to do for any browser this way, although not really straightforward.
Firefox exposes cookies even to addons since there are cookie editor addons (that can edit cookie for any site).
Chrome/Chromium allows setting of cookies through "content scripts" that run in the context of a page (any page) - that's only in the beta branch so far, but soon to be in stable. However, the downside is that you might have to visit the site for it to work (you could fake that using iframes).
No idea about Opera.
The only one I have found that works quite well for creating/updating/viewing cookies is Firecookie
Is there any good browser based WebDAV client? If not, is it possible to make one?
Look at the AjaxFileBrowser from ITHit. Pretty slick, and has FireFox & Chrome PUT support for uploading. IE, drag-and-drop from your desktop to the browser. They have a fully functional demo site up at http://www.ajaxbrowser.com.
There's a plugin for Firefox which handles WebDAV.
Webfolders is a firefox extension that gives you the ability to view the contents of WebDAV
servers in the browser and use the full functionality of the WebDAV protocol.
Depends on what you expect the client to do, and whether you're looking for a cross-browser "web application", or a browser extension.
The main issue with doing this in a "web application" (as opposed to a browser extension) is (1) the lack of binary data support in Javascript, and (2) the lack of access to the local file system (which of course is a security feature).
There is webdav-js which can be enabled as a bookmarklet or served by the WebDAV server itself as an HTML page.
It supports the regular listing of files and directories, file upload, directory creation, renaming, as well as in-page display of images and other media.
If by browser based you mean that it runs in html (ie you don't want your users to install a plugin) then the answer is partly yes and mostly no.
Partly yes, because I have built and used one. It uses the jquery jtree plugin to display folders, and selecting a folder node populates a file list in the right hand panel. Panels are done with another jquery plugin, and the file list is made dynamic with the jquery datatables plugin.
But I think for you the answer is probably "no". Thats because for the browser to use webdav is must user webdav "methods" like PROPFIND and MKCOL. These methods just arent supported in most browsers, so your javascript can't use them directly. I have a server-side mapping in my webdav server project which allows my javascript to use normal GET and POST methods, and these requests are transformed on the server to webdav methods.
I said "probably no" for you since this serve side mapping isnt standard, its a part of milton. But if you happen to use milton, or you can use milton, then its all good.
Try SMEStorage.com. They turn any WebDav back-end into a personal cloud file solution. As well as a rich browser desktop and mobile client, there are clients for Mac,Windows, Linux and Mobile clients for Android, iOS, Windows Phone, and BlackBerry.
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.