Add support for custom browser launch templates #731
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changed?
Adds the 'CUSTOM' browser key field and support for templating a browser launch command using the Go text/template library.
Removes the
COMMON_FATE
browser which referenced a custom desktop application we were testing last year which has since been deprecated.Why?
Some Granted community members use browsers that we do not provide built-in support for in Granted, or wish to customise the behaviour of browser launching.
Examples:
This PR solves part of this customisation issue by allowing Granted users to specify their own browser launch template command:
Additional arguments can be provided when calling
assume
orgranted console
, e.g.This PR doesn't add custom browser support to our initial CLI onboarding. Given that this is an advanced feature we can initially add documentation for this to https://docs.commonfate.io, and then we can come back and add onboarding support for this in a future PR.
The Granted Containers Firefox extension uses a custom URL scheme to open a URL in a particular container.
You can construct this URL on MacOS using the following configuration:
For other operating systems, the executable path will be different but the flags will be the same.
How did you test it?
Potential risks
Low risk as existing functionality remains the same
Is patch release candidate?
No, new feature
Link to relevant docs PRs