I'm hoping to test WebRTC functionality in my web app. This requires accepting the browser's permission prompt for access to the Camera and/or Microphone. Is this possible to do with Casper.js and Slimer.js? I can't find anything in the documentation suggesting it's doable.
Somewhat related (similar problem, different platform): Accept browser permission dialog with behat/mink
While you can't programmatically click the permission button, CasperJS/SlimerJS will let you use a custom profile for the automated Firefox instance you're using in your tests. At least in the case of the WebRTC/getUserMedia permission prompts, Firefox lets you disable them in a profile's settings.
Here's what you do. In your shell, use SlimerJS to create a new profile:
slimerjs --createprofile nameOfYourNewProfileGoesHere
Your new profile has been created in your Firefox profiles directory. To locate the directory you can either search for the profile name you just created, or go to Firefox and Help Menu > Troubleshooting Information. Next to 'Profile Folder' click 'Show in Finder' (or equivalent for your platform).
Your profile is a directory with a name like asfd1234.nameOfYourNewProfileGoesHere, inside that dir edit the prefs.js file and add this line:
user_pref("media.navigator.permission.disabled", true);
Now when you run your CasperJS scripts (or SlimerJS directly, I suppose -- I only tested this through Casper), you just need to specify the profile. With CasperJS:
casperjs test --engine=slimerjs -P nameOfYourNewProfileGoesHere nameOfYourTestFile.js
It's almost too easy! ;)
Related
So I'm trying to find a way to add default file extensions options to Firefox. Since for whatever reason it doesn't give you the option?
Example: Settings > General > Applications
I want to add new content types and then be able to select my default application of choice.
The current issue is, that I use an MSP client that when necessary allows us to remote into a client's workstation for troubleshooting. Normally one would just click on the "Start Remote Session," button, and it brings up the application to do so. However, since it operates in some form of Javascript (I think....?), it doesn't technically download a file for me to save and then execute through the app. It just opens the app automatically. It never gives me the option to save the a file or anything like that, that it would use for the Remote Session app.
So I want to figure out how to bypass this issue by just adding the extension needed for this process in Firefox's default content types.
Works on Windows, I'm currently on Linux. (So please don't tell me to not use linux or any form there of. That or to use wine or playonlinux. I already am)
I work on a chrome extension that injects content scripts into all frames on all webpages. I'd like to extend this functionality by adding "match_about_blank": true to the content script permissions in the manifest file. In the chrome extension docs, it says that updating an extension with additional permissions may temporarily disable it. My question is, will adding the match_about_blank attribute to a content script trigger this permission warning?
To close the loop here- the comment by wOxxOm above is indeed correct. I posed this question on the chromium forum and received a full detailed response from a chromium dev here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-extensions/AnWzbP76ZZs
For anybody else who arrives here wondering if a permission change will cause their extension to be disabled when they push an update, if you follow the instructions here https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/permission_warnings#update_permissions you can actually test this locally (pack and install current build of extension, then make changes and pack and install the extension again using the same private key).
An article on Chrome OS that I read here:
https://medium.com/#JamesCridland/review-five-months-with-a-chromebook-for-web-development-writing-and-more-8adf36b4a061
says:
"Update: Above, I mention that I use SSH and vi to do my programming work. And I did. Except I don’t any more. It turns out that one of the newer updates added direct SFTP access into the Files app (the equivalent of Explorer or Finder), so that my development box appears simply as another drive on my Chromebook. And Caret is an excellent programmer’s editor. So now I have a proper programmer’s editor (as well as the SSH terminal I need to put those changes live)."
Ok. But, when I go into Chrome OS's files app, the apparent way 'mount' my equiv of his
'development box' is via 'add new services', which is launching a webstore-app named 'SFTP' (whose icon is a blue folder outline with "SFTP" on it). i,e.:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sftp-file-system/gbheifiifcfekkamhepkeogobihicgmn?hl=en
(My equiv of his 'development box' I'm assuming to be my web-server at bluehost.com, where I currently use Firefox's FireFTP extension, on Win-10.)
I can't get this 3-stars webstore 'SFTP' app (authored by someone from Japan) to authenticate me into my bluehost acc't. So, now I'm wondering whether
this 'SFTP' app is even the right thing to have installed, due to all the one- and two-star showstopper reviews. One typical review by a guy named Tim says:
"It's a nice try, but I really wish someone who knows what they're doing would make this service. It looks like it works but if you drill down more than a few folders deep on the remote filesystem, operations slow to a crawl."
Similarly, the two clients ('sFTP client' and 'sFTP client Lite) also have such low ratings, that my gut says that Google has failed to deliver a robust web-developer infrastructure.
Come on Google...you need to implement this stuff under your own logo.
Am I missing something???
Probably should advertise this functionality better :), but the Secure Shell App supports mounting via SFTP so it will appear in the Files app.
Steps to use:
Install Secure Shell Chrome extension.
Launch the extension (look for it in the bar to the right of the omnibox/browser URL bar -- it'll have a black terminal icon).
Enter the connection details to create a new profile.
Give it a description like "user#foo.com".
Instead of clicking "Connect" in the bottom right, click "Mount".
Authenticate with the server (keys/pass/whatever).
Once it finishes, it'll now be visible in the Files app.
If you suspend/resume the system or otherwise logout/reboot, you'll need to relaunch Secure Shell, select the saved profile, and then click "Mount" again. We probably should make this a bit smoother, but that's how it works currently.
No, not an answer yet...just more wishlist stuff:
Ok, more recent info about the Firefox browser's "FireFTP" addon:
It no longer works on the (new) std Firefox browser, as of a couple of
weeks ago when version 57.0 was released. (No biggie tho...a goggle revealed
a new-to-me browser called 'Waterfox' and it nicely supports FireFTP and the
other addons that Firefox dropped support for.)
So a bit more research yielded only yet more 'mumble-mode' confusion: it revealed that FireFTP is open source...located here:
https://github.com/mimecuvalo/fireftp
(So I submitted a new 'issue' there and asked about porting it to Chrome.)
I'm desperate, and recently test-drove Google's new Pixelbook.
(Sigh...nothing inspirational came of that...I give it one-thumb-down rating.
Here's my notes from that experience:
------------ Review notes of Pixelbook: ----------------------
Google didn’t think to include a USB-C to USB-A adapter. (A $2 item. e.g.)
https://www.amazon.com/Remax-USB3-1-Female-Adapter-Silver/dp/B01MCSRSKN/
That was my 'showstopper'...like a few other reviewers said...it's not well
thought out / matured. To me it feels more like a gimmick, than a product.
At a minimum, it rates my newest hashtag: #NRFPT (not ready for prime time).
I found no obvious way to disable the touchpad, when using a mouse.
In fact, no other reviewers expressed interest in using a mouse. (???)
Lastly, my favorite kind of Android apps are 'widgets', and I see no signs
that it has occurred to Google to allow Chrome-OS's desktop/background to
host any widgets.
Ok, I'm still in mumble-mode...and still in search of a FTP/SFTP GUI client for
the Chrome browser / Chrome-OS that is the quality of FireFTP.
Enable Linux(beta) on your chromebook. Then you can do whatever you want like on others linux machine.
A simple sftp connection command
sftp [user#]host
Enable linux and mount with sshfs
sudo apt install sshfs
then
sshfs -o reconnect,ServerAliveInterval=15,ServerAliveCountMax=3 user#xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:/remotedir localdir
or with key auth
sshfs -o reconnect,ServerAliveInterval=15,ServerAliveCountMax=3,IdentityFile=~/.ssh/id_rsa user#xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:/remotedir localdir
These will reconnect after resuming from sleep
I want to bundle an extension with my executable, and I want it to automatically add it to the users browser if they have chrome or firefox. Is there a directory where I can drop the .crx file containing the extension for chrome, and chrome will automatically use it? And what should I do for firefox?
If you want to simplify things you can use Crossrider and get an installer which will install your extension on IE, Firefox and Chrome.
This installer can also run in silent mode, so you run it from your executable without interrupting the normal flow.
To do all that, you will first have to open a new user and copy your extension code to Crossrider (which is probably a good idea anyway since then you will have one code for your app which will support all browsers).
For Chrome:
You can put it in the registry or drop it in the external-extensions.json file (%localappdata%/Google/Chrome/Application/chrome_xx.xxx.xxx.xxx/Extensions/).
I never did it myself actually but it's all documented on the official channel:
http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/external_extensions.html
There's also a way to install it via Group-Policy, but none of all these three methods is cross-platform AFAIK.
For Firefox:
I have no idea.
My recommendation would be:
DO go through the browser itself,
DO NOT try to sneak around and force it onto the user
Reasons for this are:
the browser is meant to ask for the user's permission, clearly and explicitly.
that's the only cross-platform way I know (and it already requires forking out, so that's not even that totally cross-platform).
I'd simply recommend forking out a browser and passing as argument the extension's file or download URL, so that it will automatically request the user's permission and start the installation process.
For instance, just calling this (on linux, if google-chrome is on your PATH):
google-chrome PATH_TO_FOLDER_OR_URL_PREFIX/myextension.xpi
Or:
google-chrome PATH_TO_FOLDER_OR_URL_PREFIX/myextension.crx
Or for Firefox:
firefox PATH_TO_FOLDER_OR_URL_PREFIX/myextension.xpi
I want to launch the browser in a different process when a particular link is clicked on the page. When I checked the net I found the following tip: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/3849 . But there we have to change the registry. Is there any simple way of doing this without touching the registry?
If you use the Google Chrome browser, each new window or tab runs in a separate process. Internet Explorer version 8 will do the same (it's currently in the second beta round).
Earlier versions of IE will run a new window in a separate process if it is launched from, say, the Start menu or the command line, or a link in an email (but not by clicking a link within IE). I imagine you could create a proxy that the client would run through, which would intercept the links you care about and launch them by running a command line request. That seems like more trouble than mucking with the registry though (assuming that registry change still works -- looks like your link is from 2002).
I don't believe this is possible unless you change the client computer setup or software it's running.
Why do you want to do this?