I’m trying to write an app that uses localStorage in a UIWebView. I’ve tested my code in regular Safari on the desktop and it works perfectly. I’m not accessing localStorage with the web view itself, but the JS inside is accessing it.
Now, when I actually put my JS inside an UIWebView, localStorage stops working.
E.g. putting the following into JS
alert(localStorage)
doesn’t do anything. alerting window nicely alerts me the correct thing.
I tried it both on a iPad and in the simulator and it doesn’t seem to able to work anywhere. I don’t see any properties or anything I could tweak for the UIWebView that would make it either enabled or disabled.
Couldn’t find any tutorials either on the web that deal with my exact situation.
It seems the problem lies in the domain security policy. I was able to finally figure out what the error is, but not sure if my solution is even fixable with any simple way as I’m actually putting the whole HTML together from different NSStrings.
http://forrst.com/posts/Security_err_dom_exception_18_and_how_to_avoid-1Ge has one solution if you’re dealing with local files.
Related
I am trying to make Facebook playable ad using Phaser3.60 but the problem is that Facebook block XMLHttpRequest which is used internally in phaser load to load images and sounds.
do do any one know a way to images to phaser without using its loader and without using XMLHttpResquest.
I tried to use imageLoadType: "HTMLImageElement" but it also gives me the same error, I dont know if facebook detect the XMLHttpRequest in the Phaser.min or in the game code.
I'm not sure if this is the solution for your specific problem, but after some tinkering, I learn abit about facebooks playable ads.
Disclaimer: First of all, I was not able the get the zip version to run.(not on the preview Tool and not even on a real campain)
With a single file index.html, with all the data inlined (just under the 2MB limit), I can upload the application and get the same Warning,
BUT after I click the Application (what executes FbPlayableAd.onCTAClick(), as mentioned in the yellow highlighted part), then the Done Button is activated, and I can deploy the ad.
I hope this helps.
I set up a very basic headless browser implementation with Puppeteer on a server, and the way I have it configured currently, I have the system scrape arbitrary websites based on user input. I then have the server send the html code of the page to a client using response.write. (I'm not actually deploying this as a solution to anything - it's really just a proof of concept.)
The results are mixed based on what website the system attempts to scrape from - but one thing they all have in common is that things like links and external stylesheets either work sporadically or not at all. My question is, is there a way to view the entire website, with clickable links and all, using Puppeteer? Or is this ridiculously impractical and totally hopeless?
If there is a way to approach this, some example code would be great.
Thanks!
I successfully (with much frustration) got our c# embedded signing to work on our site, however, that was before I tested with Safari on a Mac. Safari does not allow Third party sites to open in an iframe without already having a cookie for that site stored. If you either open the site beforehand or allowing all cookies, the document will show embedded. However, even messing around with that, the redirection after completion is not working. The please wait popup does not redirect back to my site. I am looking for any embedded solution that supports mac.
The process works great on windows, but does not work on Safari for Mac and is intermittent with Firefox and Chrome on mac.
I am looking for any non-iFrame embedded solutions that I could implement that should work on all platforms and browsers.
Since you have embedding working in terms of generating a URL token, it's up to you how to access that URL. We've seen developers write their own programs to view where they have complete control over the iFrame and can do whatever they like with it, and another solution we've seen is to use a web browser control.
see this SO link
The only workaround that I know of is to pop up a new browser window. I know there is work being done to make it work without cookies, but at this time the new browser window is your only choice.
Sorry about that.
I'm having a very bizarre issue. I have been building a website locally on my linux box and all was well until I uploaded the site files to a place where i have some hosted space. Everything renders exactly the same except one element in my footer which i think is affecting some jquery animation i am using. I thought maybe I was missing files or hadn't uploaded the latest versions of everything, so I deleted the server directory and re-uploaded everything exactly as is from my local copy. And yet, the problem remains. I'm not sure how this is happening. Has anyone seen this before, or does anyone have an idea what could cause this? I'm baffled! Thanks everyone!!! I am attaching screen shots.
Seems to be a cache problem. Try to force a refresh with F5 or CTRL+F5.
Try clear your cache in your browser settings.
If that don't work, use Firebug (an Firefox browser addon) to check actual css at your footer. This will show the problem.
BTW: don't use spaces in your URL if you can. Don't use spaces in your filenames/folders.
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.