Fix: Unable to select text inside blob - #2458
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 965c0bddc7
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| "match_origin_as_fallback" | ||
| ], | ||
| "value": true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bump Firefox minimum for this key
This adds match_origin_as_fallback to the Firefox variants while the same generated manifest still advertises browser_specific_settings.gecko.strict_min_version and gecko_android.strict_min_version as 115.0; Firefox only supports this content-script key starting in 128. On Firefox/Firefox Android 115–127 the extension is still considered compatible, but the new blob/data/about injection behavior is unsupported, so the reported blob-reader scenario remains broken for part of the declared support range unless the minimum version is raised or an older-version fallback is used.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
Is there a reason you added this as a modification to half the manifest variants instead of modifying the base manifest |
|
@Kuuuube I was worried about Safari since I couldn't test it, but on further googling it seems fine. I added it to the base |
|
@Kuuuube I fixed the unit test, could you please run the workflow again? |
|
The Also if you want to do a full update on the |
|
@Kuuuube I updated the chrome-manifest-schema.json, but upgrading @types/chrome broke a lot of things so I just made a minimal patch to the type so the test would pass |
|
Are you sure you only bumped |
|
@Kuuuube the errors occur with |
|
@Kuuuube I bumped @types/chrome and fixed the errors, let me know if you want to keep it or not |
|
Im going to need you to explain why in the package lock you've edited the source of a package to point away from the official npm registry into a third party private npm listing. I can give you a pass on it not being malicious since the hash is intact but that is super sketchy. (This is why tests are failing btw) Also I dont think any of these packages should be peer dependencies? Unless I'm misunderstanding what that means in npm. |
|
@Kuuuube Yes, sorry about the package lock thing, I have an internal private registry set up in my npm config and it seems to have decided to prioritize that. It's not accessible externally, but I agree it was a good idea for you to raise it since it might have been malicious. I cleaned it out and squashed my changes to be sure its not used. |
Fixes #2457