I want to put event hooks into WATIR so every time it does a page load it calls a method on the new page.
Where would I go about inserting this hook? Sorry, I am somewhat naive about how WATIR interfaces with IE over COM.
Naively I want to get a screenshot and HTML dump at each page load that I can post process.
You can do that by using Watir::Browser#add_checker method - http://rubydoc.org/github/watir/watir-classic/Watir/Browser#add_checker-instance_method
It works the same with watir-classic or watir-webdriver.
Related
I'm making a small project with selenium. but before I can do anything, I need to wait for the whole page to load. is there anyway, for me to send keys as soon as the search bar loads?
You can use
driver.implicitly_wait(10)
On top of your code so each time you try to find an element it will try for 10 seconds and if it doesn’t find it, it will raise an exception
I understand that the background page of a Chrome extension is never displayed. It makes sense to me that a background page should contain only scripts. In what situations would HTML markup ever be needed?
At https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/background_pages there is an example with an HTML background page, but I haven't been able to get it to work (perhaps because I am not sure what it should be doing).
Are there any examples of simple Chrome extensions which demonstrate how HTML markup can be useful in a background page?
Historical reasons
The background page is, technically, a whole separate document - except it's not rendered in an actual tab.
For simplicity's sake, perhaps, extensions started with requiring a full HTML page for the background page through the background_page manifest property. That was the only form.
But, as evidenced by your question, most of the time it's not clear what the page can actually be used for except for holding scripts. That made the entire thing being just a piece of boilerplate.
That's why when Chrome introduced "manifest_version": 2 in 2012 as a big facelift to extensions, they added an alternative format, background.scripts array. This will offload the boilerplate to Chrome, which will then create a background page document for you, succinctly called _generated_background_page.html.
Today, this is a preferred method, though background.page is still available.
Practical reasons
With all the above said, you still sometimes want to have actual elements in your background page's document.
<script> for dynamically adding scripts to the background page (as long as they conform to extension CSP).
Among other things, since you can't include external scripts through background.scripts array, you need to create a <script> element for those you whitelist for the purpose.
<canvas> for preparing image data for use elsewhere, for example in Browser Action icons.
<audio> for producing sounds.
<textarea> for (old-school) working with clipboard (don't actually do this).
<iframe> for embedding an external page into the background page, which can sometimes help extracting dynamic data.
..possibly more.
It's debatable which boilerplate is "better": creating the elements in advance as a document, or using document.createElement and its friends as needed.
In any case, a background page is always a page, whether provided by you or autogenerated by Chrome. You can use all the DOM functions you want.
My two cents:
Take Google Mail Checker as an example, it declares a canvas in background.html
<canvas id="canvas" width="19" height="19">
Then it could manipulate the canvas in background.js and call chrome.browserAction.setIcon({imageData: canvasContext.getImageData(...)}) to change the browser action icon.
I know we could dynamically create canvas via background.js, however when doing something involving DOM element, using html directly seems easier.
I'd like do this programmatically:
Given a page URL, I need to get all links on the page. What's important is that at least 3 pieces of link info must be obtained: anchor text, href attribute value, absolute position of the link on the page.
Java CSSBox library is an option, but it's not fully implemented yet(the href attribute value cannot be obtained at the same time and some extra mapping must be done with additional library such as Jsoup). What's more, the CSSBox library renders a page really slow.
It seems that Javascript has all functions available but we have to inject the javascript code into the page and write a driver to take advantage of existing browsers. Scripting languages such as Python and Ruby have support for this as well. It is hard for me to find out the most handy tool.
Does PHP's DOM manipulation library help you? http://www.php.net/manual/en/book.dom.php
I am writing a chrome extension that is a 'content script'
I want to inject a google map on to a webpage.
Problem:
It appears that i have no way to add functions on to the window object, thus i cannot define a callback function for googlemaps to call when it loads.
How do people usually go about mucking with the window?
--
someone on the interwebs suggested i do this:
You can do this easily with a JavaScript URL: window.location =
"javascript:obj.funcvar = function() {}; void(0);"
but when i did this i got an access denied error. it seems like a lot of search results about this problem are outdated.
Content scripts have a separate JavaScript execution ennvironment from the page they run on, so they cannot alter JS variables in the page itself. However, the content script shares the DOM with the page, so you can inject a <script> tag into the DOM which will be loaded and run in the actual page's execution environment.
I was wondering if it is possible to create a new XUL component via any available api, such as XPCOM or NPAPI, so we can use it our XUL files.
Let's say I wanted to clone the XULs vbox's components code and add a few modifications to it, so we could use our custom XUL component just like this:
<window>
<myvbox mycustomarg1="customValue"> Some content... </myvbox>
</window>
I know what XBL is and what is used for and it doesn't fit our need.
Any suggestion of how to achieve that?
Edit:
We need to create a browser component in Firefox as child of another browser object. The problem is some websites detect this child browser as iframe and we want to avoid this.
Thanks.
If the point is preventing a webpage loaded into a frame from messing with your XUL document then you should use <browser type="content"> - this establishes a security boundary between chrome and content which (among other things) prevents the content document from accessing its parent frame. It is important however that your XUL document itself is loaded as chrome and not content (by either being on top level or inside <browser type="chrome">). See https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XUL/Attribute/browser.type for documentation.