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

Umbrella / Meta: Browser Permissions as an extension module #587

Closed
1 task done
thiagowfx opened this issue Nov 3, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed
1 task done

Umbrella / Meta: Browser Permissions as an extension module #587

thiagowfx opened this issue Nov 3, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request needs-discussion Issues to be discussed by the working group

Comments

@thiagowfx
Copy link
Member

thiagowfx commented Nov 3, 2023

Permissions spec umbrella issue: w3c/permissions#424

"Interacting with Permissions for Powerful Features"

The WebDriver BiDi spec spec should support interaction with browser permissions as an extension module. These permissions represent a user's choice to allow or deny access to "powerful features" of the platform. For developers, the specification standardizes an API to query the permission state of a powerful feature, and be notified if a permission to use a powerful feature changes state.

The Permissions spec already supports WebDriver classic. This bug is about making it support WebDriver BiDi as well.

References:

Soft references:

@thiagowfx thiagowfx added enhancement New feature or request needs-discussion Issues to be discussed by the working group labels Nov 3, 2023
@thiagowfx thiagowfx self-assigned this Nov 3, 2023
@thiagowfx thiagowfx changed the title Meta: Browser Permissions Umbrella / Meta: Browser Permissions Nov 3, 2023
@thiagowfx thiagowfx changed the title Umbrella / Meta: Browser Permissions Umbrella / Meta: Browser Permissions as an extension module Nov 6, 2023
thiagowfx pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 6, 2023
So that it can be referred from other specs.

Bug: #506
Bug: #587
thiagowfx pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 6, 2023
So that it can be referred from other specs.

Currently there is no definition we can refer to in `webdriver-bidi`:
https://respec.org/xref/?term=extension+modules, unlike WebDriver
classic which has an exported "extension commands" definition.

Bug: #506
Bug: #587
thiagowfx pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 6, 2023
So that it can be referred from other specs.

Currently there is no definition we can refer to in `webdriver-bidi`:
https://respec.org/xref/?term=extension+modules, unlike WebDriver
classic which has an exported "extension commands" definition.

Bug: #506
Bug: #587
thiagowfx pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 6, 2023
So that they can be referenced from other specs.

Bug: #506
Bug: #587
Bug: w3c/permissions#425
thiagowfx pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 7, 2023
So that they can be referenced from other specs.

Bug: #506
Bug: #587
Bug: w3c/permissions#425
@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The Browser Testing and Tools Working Group just discussed Permission extensions.

The full IRC log of that discussion <AutomatedTester_> Topic: Permission extensions
<AutomatedTester_> github: https://github.com//issues/587
<AutomatedTester_> orkon___: thiagowfx_web started looking into implementing permissions
<AutomatedTester_> ... there is a PR in draft that people can start reviewing about how extension methods should be written
<jgraham_> q+
<AutomatedTester_> ... do we want to refine the way we have extensions written or ...?
<AutomatedTester_> ack next
<AutomatedTester_> jgraham_: I haven't looked yet but adding whole modules seems a very clear way for people to add things
<AutomatedTester_> ... it also has good way to prevent people trampling over
<orkon___> q+
<AutomatedTester_> ... I think vendor extensions and spec extensions are very different use cases
<AutomatedTester_> ... we should encourage external specs to define whole modules for their use
<jgraham_> q+ gsnedders
<AutomatedTester_> ack next
<AutomatedTester_> orkon___: <describes something about colon>. As for classic permissions only has 1 command so that seems a little much for a whole module
<AutomatedTester_> ... but I think it could work
<AutomatedTester_> ack next
<jgraham_> q+
<AutomatedTester_> gsnedders: To use the permission spec as a idea... we should consider that a spec could extend webdriver and also want to add new capabilities and we should handle that
<AutomatedTester_> ack next
<AutomatedTester_> jgraham_: capabilities is a special case
<orkon___> q+
<AutomatedTester_> ... if the use case is extending capabilities I think that is already covered
<AutomatedTester_> ack next
<AutomatedTester_> orkon: we have already started looking into this to get the classic across to bidi. if you think we can improve this please comment on the PR
<AutomatedTester_> q?

@whimboo
Copy link
Contributor

whimboo commented Nov 9, 2023

The Browser Testing and Tools Working Group just discussed Permission extensions.
The full IRC log of that discussion

And there was one more comment from @jgraham that actually sneaked into the logs for #287 (comment):

<jgraham_> (don't want to extend this topic further, but I always assumed BiDi would move to an event-based model for permissions i.e. you'd get a permissions.Request event with some information)

thiagowfx pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2023
thiagowfx pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 22, 2023
* Introduce recommendations for external specification modules

Bug: #506, #587

* Update index.bs

Co-authored-by: Alex Rudenko <[email protected]>

* remove external spec dfn

* Update index.bs

Co-authored-by: jgraham <[email protected]>

* Update index.bs

* remove paragraph

* linkify command names and event names

* Update index.bs

Co-authored-by: Alex Rudenko <[email protected]>

* define -> extend

---------

Co-authored-by: Alex Rudenko <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jgraham <[email protected]>
@thiagowfx thiagowfx assigned OrKoN and unassigned thiagowfx Nov 23, 2023
OrKoN added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 27, 2023
* Introduce recommendations for external specification modules

Bug: #506, #587

* Update index.bs

Co-authored-by: Alex Rudenko <[email protected]>

* remove external spec dfn

* Update index.bs

Co-authored-by: jgraham <[email protected]>

* Update index.bs

* remove paragraph

* linkify command names and event names

* Update index.bs

Co-authored-by: Alex Rudenko <[email protected]>

* define -> extend

---------

Co-authored-by: Alex Rudenko <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jgraham <[email protected]>
@thiagowfx
Copy link
Member Author

The recommendation was added (#605), and the umbrella issue in the permissions repo was closed (w3c/permissions#424), therefore this can be closed.

I'll just note that there's one missing AI from w3c/permissions#424:

TODO: Add user context to SetPermissionParameters

@OrKoN you may want to open a separate bug/FR for that, if still relevant

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request needs-discussion Issues to be discussed by the working group
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants