Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Modernize extension #38

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jul 28, 2017
Merged

Modernize extension #38

merged 8 commits into from
Jul 28, 2017

Conversation

fregante
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@musically-ut
Copy link
Owner

w00t! This is a large rewrite! Thanks for bringing the extension to the 21st century! :)

I'll test it out with Firefox later today. I'm assuming that you've done Chrome already. I'll leave some comments on the PR as well.

@musically-ut
Copy link
Owner

Adding a note for later review: Userscript version.

@fregante
Copy link
Contributor Author

fregante commented Jul 24, 2017

Yeah, about the userscript version. Are you sure you want to maintain that? Especially manually?

I've been asked to port my extensions to userscripts before but userscripts aren't as capable and I don't really care of userscripts (which need a base extension to be executed in the first place, like tampermonkey and greasemonkey)

@musically-ut
Copy link
Owner

There is an argument to be made about ubiquity of userscripts: they can run on IceMonkey/Opera/Safari, etc almost out of the box.

However, I also see that the Userscript may restrict one to an older version of JavaScript. Perhaps @yfdyh000 could also share some of his motivations for making a Userscript version in the first place?

@fregante
Copy link
Contributor Author

fregante commented Jul 24, 2017

Sure, if you want to support the dozen of users on those three browsers combined no one will stop you, I just don't think it's worth the effort. Opera supports Chrome extensions anyway.

I'll add: it's not about javascript versions but about the web-ext API, like the more flexible Storage API

@yfdyh000
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think the userscript block this review, you can keep it as a legacy version. Create userscript because the original extension is almost just a userscript, missing meta only, and I hope it can be more easily customized and improved.

@yfdyh000
Copy link
Contributor

Also, I think this updates can be modified to userscript, but there is no significant power to do so for now.
If we want to make the user configuration / options, the userscript will be a nice prototype and lightweight, like const optionA = true; instead of an options interface.

@musically-ut musically-ut merged commit 72be586 into musically-ut:master Jul 28, 2017
@musically-ut
Copy link
Owner

I've merged this in and have left the userscript as the legacy version.

However, I'll release the next version after I've added the preference for the indentation.

Thanks @bfred-it!

@fregante fregante deleted the modern branch July 28, 2017 07:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants