vitest-webextension-mock v0.0.7

vitest-webextension-mock

Questions

What should we do with the differences between the specs and the chrome implementation?
For an example, according to the spec, browser.action.setTitle should take

setTitle({title: string, windowId: number, tabId: number})

according to the specs (MDN), but the chrome implementation is (docs):

setTitle({title: string, tabId: number}, callback: Function)

What should we do in such cases?

• Offer a way for consumers to configure which flavour of the API they want to use?
• Only do chrome flavour? Only do official spec flavour?

We should for sure look at webextension-polyfill which solves this problem and follow what they do (which is most likely following the spec)

TODO

• Make extension URL configurable so consumers can control the path returned by browser.runtime.getURL()
  • Make browser configurable so it changes the scheme chrome-extension:// or moz-extension://
  • Allow user to provide extension ID

Docs

The mock functions will try to emulate browser behavior as best they can. For an example:

browser.action.getTitle({windowId: 1, tabId: 1}) 

Will return an error because according to the specs, if both windowId and tabId are supplied, getTitle should return an error.

However, we rely on typescript for parameters null checks:

browser.action.getTitle()

is an invalid call as getTitle expects 1 parameter. The mocked function will not throw if called without a parameter. We recommend you use typescript with @types/webextension-polyfill to catch these errors at build time.