GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 771241
[PATCH] Add inline installation of Chrome/Firefox/Opera web extensions to extensions.gnome.org site
Last modified: 2017-03-10 03:18:58 UTC
Created attachment 335300 [details] [review] Proposed patch Hi, With attached patch Chrome/Chromium, Vivaldi and Opera users will see custom error message when GNOME Shell integration for Chrome [1] is not installed. In addition, support for inline installation [2][3] of web extension is added for mentioned browsers. While this will work in Opera as is, for Chrome/Chromium and Vivaldi additional step of site verification is needed [4]: 1. extensions.gnome.org site should be added to Google Search Console [5]. 2. Some access (as I think - minimal restricted should be enought) should be added to my Google account from Google Search Console (currently Chrome web extension is released under my Google account because Release Team was not interested in controlling extension release account last time I asked [6]). ---- [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShellIntegrationForChrome [2] https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/inline_installation [3] https://dev.opera.com/extensions/inline-installation/ [4] https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/inline_installation#verified-site [5] https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/home [6] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2016-March/msg00023.html
Review of attachment 335300 [details] [review]: This change will make it much more clear to the user what he has to do. Thanks! I think the "web extension" term is not very clear. As far as I see, Firefox introduced this term one year ago https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser mentions "browser extensions" Chome browser's plugins are simply called "extensions" https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/extensions Let's use "browser extension" instead of "web extension". Nitpick: Would be nice to mention in the "else" block the intention: Open the store to let the user search for the extension (?)
> I think the "web extension" term is not very clear. > ... > Let's use "browser extension" instead of "web extension". Agreed > Nitpick: Would be nice to mention in the "else" block the intention: Open the store to let the user search for the extension (?) Do you mean "dummy_proxy" message?
Now I see two else! No, I meant the other else: } else if(typeof(chrome) !== 'undefined') {
> Nitpick: Would be nice to mention in the "else" block the intention: Open the store to let the user search for the extension (?) > No, I meant the other else: > } else if(typeof(chrome) !== 'undefined') { If both window.opr and window.chrome are undefined then user browsing site via some webkit browser that possibly may not work with Chrome store. I don't think we should point users to possibly incompatible extensions repository.
I meant by adding a comment in the code, it will be easier to understand, when reading the code, what the intention is and what is expected to happen.
*** Bug 779104 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Fixed in master for Chrome, Firefox and Opera. Deployed in production.
*** Bug 779824 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***