Previously calling `script.code()` would fail if the script didn't have
a `name`. This wasn't being hit in practice because the only place that
constructs GreasemonkeyScripts was checking for that condition and add
the filename there as a fallback.
This change make the `name` attribute more explicitly mandatory by
failing with a `ValueError` if it is not provided and make it still
possible to use the filename fallback in that case by adding a
`filename` keyward argument to `__init__()`.
Additionally where `script_meta` is used in `script.code()` a fallback
to and emptry string was added so it doesn't fail for raw javascript
files without greasemonkey metadata.
I just want to return something I can refer to the attributes of via dot
syntax without having to pointlessly write the names both when I declare
the data class and when I assign the variables.
Such a stupid warning.
Since the JSCore used by WebKit 602.1 doesn't fully support Proxy and I
can't think of a way to provide isolation otherwise just revert to the
old behaviour in that case. I am checking for the specific WebKit
version because I'm pretty sure that version just happened to be
released when Proxy support was only partially done, any later release
will presumably have a newer JSCore where it works.
There I changed the indentation of a block in the jinja template which
will have inflated the diff.
I added mocking of `objects.backend` to the `webview` and
`webenginewebview` fixtures, I am pretty sure they are mutually
exclusive so don't expect any issues from that.
Because of the feature detection being at template compile time I had to
tweak the test setup to be done via a fixture instead of the setupClass
functionality that I was using before.
The implementation of Proxy in JSCore used by current QtWebkit (webkit
602.1) doesn't support the `set()` handler for whatever reason. So
instead of testing for a specific behaviour that we can't ensure on that
version let's just skip the tests and handle user complaints with
sympathy.
Adds a test to codify what I think greasemonkey scripts expect from
their scope chains. Particularly that they can:
1. access the global `window` object
2. access all of the attributes of the global window object as global
objects themselves
3. see any changes the page made to the global scope
4. write to attributes of `window` and have those attributes, and changes
to existing attributes, accessable via global scope
5. do number 4 without breaking the pages expectations, that is what
`unsafeWindow` is for
There are some other points about greasemonkey scripts' environment that
I believe to be true but am not testing in this change:
* changes a page makes to `window` _after_ a greasemonkey script is
injected will still be visible to the script if it cares to check and
it hasn't already shadowed them
* said changes will not overwrite changes that the greasemonkey script
has made.
The greasemonkey `@match` directive is used to match urls against
chromium url patterns (as opposed to `@include` which treats its
argument as a glob expression). I was using fnmatch for both here
because I am lazy and knew someone else was going to implement chromium
url patterns for me eventually. Now it is done and I should switch to
using them instead. The most common failing case that this will fix is
something matching on `*://*.domain.com/*` because it wouldn't match
the url with no subdomain.
This codepath is only used on webengine 5.7.1 and webkit backends.
If we don't do this, when doing:
self.config_stub.val.content.user_stylesheets = css_path
then _update_stylesheet gets called before the stylesheet QWebEngineScript did
run (as there was no load yet), so we get:
[:2] Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'stylesheet' of undefined!
Instead, load the page first and then update the stylesheet.
This tests that live updating works properly, and also makes sure we don't run
into the problem described above.
Like the spec says, if a value for the @include or @exclude rules starts
and ends with a '/' it should be parsed as a regular expression.
Technically a ECMAScript syntax regular expression, but I am not sure of
the differences and I assume they are far fewer than the similarities.
One that I did see mentioned was that javascript RegExp doesn't support
unicode. Although it apparently does support a 'u' flag now.
Note that code will only be ran for QtWebkit and QWebEngine < 5.8
we rely on the builtin support for metadata it QWebEngine for most
things greasemonkey related. Sadly it seems that they missed the regex
requirement too. I've opened a ticket to track that https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-65484
