-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
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
Add runtime.getContexts()
proposal
#358
Changes from all commits
d2110d2
d0043ef
d7a6655
a1b960b
7de6f80
402a463
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,302 @@ | ||
# New API: runtime.getContexts() | ||
|
||
## Background | ||
|
||
Chromium currently has the | ||
[`extension.getViews()`](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/extension/#method-getViews) | ||
API method that allows an extension to get information about the "views" that | ||
are active for the extension. A "view" in this context is any HTML frame in the | ||
extension's process that commits to the extension origin; this may not be all | ||
the extension owns, such as in the case of incognito-mode frames. The returned | ||
values are a set of `HTMLWindow` objects, which the extension has permission to | ||
reach directly into (as they are same-origin). | ||
|
||
Some common reasons for calling this method are: determining if a toolbar | ||
popup, tab, or options page is open; directly interacting with those pages by | ||
reaching into their `HTMLWindow`; etc. | ||
|
||
Chromium's implementation of Manifest V2 (MV2) allows for | ||
[background pages](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv2/background_pages/) | ||
to call this API. This is possible because these pages are themselves an | ||
extension frame (albeit one that isn't visibly rendered) and run on the main | ||
thread of the renderer; this allows them easy access to the JavaScript | ||
[`Window`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window#instance_properties) | ||
objects provided by `extension.getViews()`. | ||
|
||
## Problem | ||
|
||
With the migration to Manifest V3 (MV3), background pages | ||
[no longer exist](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/migrating_to_service_workers/); | ||
instead, an extension's background context is | ||
[service worker](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/workbox/service-worker-overview/)-based. | ||
For technical reasons<sup>[1](#footnotes)</sup>, service workers cannot access | ||
the [`Window`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window#instance_properties) | ||
objects that `extension.getViews()` provides and it is not feasible to | ||
implement that with our browser design. Due to this, we cannot provide access | ||
to the JavaScript context for these views, but we can allow an extension to | ||
query for them (determining if they exist) and target them for messaging | ||
purposes. | ||
|
||
## Solution | ||
|
||
Considering the above situation, we'd like to propose a new extension API | ||
method, `runtime.getContexts()`, to asynchronously provide metadata about | ||
associated contexts that is still useful for an extension. A "context" here is | ||
considered an environment running the extension's code; the contexts we will | ||
consider are described in more detail in later sections. This will allow | ||
extension background scripts to identify the active contexts in the extension. | ||
For example, this can be used to target messages to send using | ||
[`runtime.sendMessage()`](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/runtime/#method-sendMessage), | ||
etc.). Introducing this API will allow an easier migration from MV2. | ||
|
||
This also obviates the need for introducing multiple one-off APIs, such as | ||
separate APIs to query for the extension popup, offscreen documents, etc. | ||
|
||
## API Proposal | ||
|
||
This method will return an array of matching contexts, represented by a new | ||
`ExtensionContext` type. This will be defined as: | ||
|
||
```js | ||
runtime.ExtensionContext = { | ||
// Context type -- tab, popup, etc. | ||
contextType: ContextType, | ||
// A unique identifier for this context. | ||
contextId: string, | ||
// ID of the tab for this context, or -1 if this context is not hosted in a | ||
// tab. | ||
tabId: int, | ||
// ID of the window for this context, or -1 if this context is not hosted in a | ||
// window. | ||
windowId: int, | ||
// ID of the DOM document for this context, or undefined if this context is | ||
// not associated with a document. | ||
documentId?: string, | ||
// ID of the frame for this context, or -1 if this context is not hosted in a | ||
// frame. | ||
frameId: int, | ||
// The current URL of the document, or undefined if this context is not | ||
// hosted in a document. | ||
documentUrl?: string, | ||
// The current origin of the document, or undefined if this context is not | ||
// hosted in a document. | ||
documentOrigin?: string, | ||
Comment on lines
+78
to
+83
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Do The "Sandboxed Pages" section notes that this method will not return sandboxed pages as they have "a separate origin ( There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They refer to the document the extension context is executing in, so it depends on the context:
I've added a new section on this in "Additional Considerations"
This was inline with Rob's suggestion on the old PR to not include sandboxed pages as contexts here, which I agree with (they are reasonably separate from the rest of the extension). We could always change that in the future by adding a new context type. |
||
// Whether the context is for an incognito profile. | ||
incognito: boolean, | ||
rdcronin marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
`ContextType` will indicate the type of context retrieved. It is an enum | ||
defined as: | ||
|
||
```js | ||
extension.ContextType = { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is this enum meant to be exhaustive? Can other browsers extend it? For example, a number of browsers support sidebars. Some extensions for Firefox and Vivaldi currently struggle with messaging with these contexts (since sidebars do not have a meaningful There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As with all APIs discussed in this community group, it's non-binding, and browser vendors can deviate when it makes sense. If a browser supports a different type of context, they can add it in here, and if they don't support a given context, they can remove the enum entry. FWIW, Chrome is also going to support side panels, so we will add a SIDE_PANEL context type when that happens. (I was tempted to include it here, but didn't want to confuse the proposal by having unshipped concepts). There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @rdcronin Could you list all types that you're thinking of for Chrome? If you'd like, prefaced by a comment E.g. I would expect at least devtools and devtools panel to have their distinct type here (as these do not fit in any of the other existing categories). There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for the call-out! Devtools are interesting -- in Chromium, they commit to a different origin (even though from the extension's POV, they are just the extension page). They are also not currently included at all in extension.getViews(). I'd like to tackle these separately, but I've added an explicit section for them in future work. I also added in a type for SIDE_PANEL (though it's still under development in Chrome) |
||
// Tabs the extension is running in. | ||
TAB: 'TAB', | ||
rdcronin marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
// Toolbar popups created by the extension. | ||
// TODO: Should this be `TOOLBAR_POPUP` to avoid ambiguity with web popup | ||
// windows? Or perhaps `ACTION_POPUP` to avoid tying it to a particular UI | ||
// surface? | ||
POPUP: 'POPUP', | ||
// The background context for the extension (in Chromium, the extension | ||
// service worker). | ||
BACKGROUND: 'BACKGROUND', | ||
// Offscreen documents for the extension. | ||
OFFSCREEN_DOCUMENT: 'OFFSCREEN_DOCUMENT', | ||
// A side panel context. Currently under development in Chromium. | ||
SIDE_PANEL, | ||
}; | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This enum will be expanded in the future as more context types are added. | ||
|
||
The method signature will be defined as: | ||
|
||
```js | ||
runtime.getContexts( | ||
filter?: ContextFilter | ||
): Promise<ExtensionContext[]>; | ||
``` | ||
|
||
A `ContextFilter` will be defined as: | ||
|
||
```js | ||
runtime.ContextFilter = { | ||
contextTypes?: ContextType[], | ||
contextIds?: string[], | ||
tabIds?: int[], | ||
windowIds?: int[], | ||
documentIds?: string[], | ||
frameIds?: int[], | ||
documentUrls?: string[], | ||
documentOrigins?: string[], | ||
incognito?: boolean, | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This type will be used to query for specific contexts. For each array property, | ||
a given `ExtensionContext` matches if it matches any properties within the | ||
array. If a property is undefined, all contexts match; thus, a filter of `{}` | ||
matches all available contexts. Note that `incognito`, as a boolean, is not an | ||
array (because to match both `true` and `false`, it is simply omitted). | ||
|
||
As examples: | ||
* `{}` matches all available contexts. | ||
* `{incognito: false}` matches all non-incognito contexts. | ||
* `{contextTypes: ['TAB', 'POPUP']}` matches any `ExtensionContext` that is | ||
either a tab or a popup. | ||
* `{contextTypes: ['TAB'], tabIds: [1, 2, 3]}` matches any `ExtensionContext | ||
that is a tab where that context is in a tab with the ID `1`, `2`, or `3`. | ||
* `{contextTypes: ['OFFSCREEN_DOCUMENT'], tabIds: [1, 2, 3]}` would inherently | ||
match no contexts, since no offscreen documents are not hosted in tabs and | ||
thus cannot match. | ||
|
||
### Additional Considerations | ||
|
||
#### Context ID | ||
|
||
Each extension context will have a unique context ID, represented by a string. | ||
This is necessary to uniquely identify a context, since other fields may be | ||
non-unique (such as URL) or absent (such as documentId). | ||
|
||
The `contextId` is unique and persistent for the lifetime of a context. For | ||
contexts associated with a document, this means `contextId` behaves like | ||
`documentId`. For service worker contexts, the `contextId` is unique for the | ||
duration of the service worker context (but will be different across service | ||
worker restarts). | ||
|
||
#### Document Properties | ||
|
||
Document-related properties (`documentId`, `documentUrl`, `documentOrigin`) | ||
refer to the document associated with this context. For extension documents | ||
(such as tabs, popups, and offscreen documents), these will point to the | ||
extension (e.g., `chrome-extension://<id>/popup.html`). If/when we add support | ||
for content scripts, this will be the document the script is injected within. | ||
For service workers (which have no document), these are undefined. | ||
|
||
#### Frames | ||
|
||
`ContextType` refers to the overall embedder for a context; for instance, | ||
`ContextType.TAB` will be used for any context associated with a tab. This | ||
includes subframes and cached frames. Developers can determine the finer | ||
grained state of these via other properties, such as `frameId`. | ||
|
||
#### Incognito mode | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This section currently describes split mode but does not directly address spanning mode. It seems reasonable to assume that in spanning mode There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. spanning mode is... weird. Try embedding an iframe in an incognito window in a spanning mode extension: you get a pseudo-split-mode-but-not-really extension. I didn't really want to spec out what happens here. I've taken a page from the fetch API and said "it's left as an exercise to the implementor." |
||
|
||
[Split-mode](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/manifest/incognito/#split) | ||
extensions will _not_ have access to the contexts from their corresponding | ||
profile. That is, the incognito extension process will not be able to access | ||
contexts from the non-incognito extension process, and vice versa. | ||
|
||
For spanning-mode extensions, most contexts are accessible. Due to differences | ||
in browser architecture, exact details about whether incognito contexts (such as | ||
iframes in incognito pages) for spanning mode extensions are left as an exercise | ||
to the implementor. | ||
|
||
#### Sandboxed Pages | ||
|
||
Sandboxed pages will not be included in the returned contexts. They are on a | ||
separate origin (`"null"`) and do not have access to extension APIs. | ||
|
||
#### TOCTOU | ||
|
||
Time-of-Check vs Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) issues are an unavoidable aspect of this | ||
API, given its asynchronous nature. An extension may call `getContexts()` and, | ||
by the time it receives the result, the values (such as available contexts or | ||
URLs of those contexts) may be different. | ||
|
||
This is something extension developers already need to worry about with any | ||
asynchronous API. API calls should handle references to non-existent contexts | ||
gracefully, and extension developers can leverage concepts like `documentId` | ||
(which is updated when a frame navigates, allowing extensions to identify if a | ||
given context is the same as when they queried it). | ||
|
||
#### Naming | ||
|
||
* *ContextType*: While there already exist more "Context" references in APIs | ||
(such as `ContextType` on the `contextMenus` API), the namespace (`runtime`) | ||
helps differentiate these. | ||
* *`documentUrl` et al*: We use `documentUrl` on contexts (as opposed to | ||
`url`) to indicate the URL is that of the document associated with the | ||
context. This is relevant for cases where there may not be a document URL | ||
(such as service workers) and allows for potential future expansion where | ||
other URLs (such as script URLs) may exist. | ||
|
||
#### Default / Absent Values | ||
|
||
There is an inconsistency in how we represent a value for a context that doesn't | ||
have the associated trait, such as a `tabId` or `documentId` for an extension's | ||
background service worker context (which has neither an associated tab nor | ||
document). Some of these values -- `tabId`, `windowId`, and `frameId` -- use | ||
constant values to indicate "no state", such as `-1` for `tabId`. Others -- | ||
`documentId`, `documentUrl`, and `documentOrigin` -- use undefined to indicate | ||
this. | ||
|
||
This is an artifact of existing APIs and precedence. Since many existing APIs | ||
use the constant integer values, we want to be consistent with those. However, | ||
for newly-introduced fields, we use the more intuitive `undefined` state. | ||
|
||
## Future Work | ||
rdcronin marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
### Messaging APIs Support `ContextId`s as Target | ||
|
||
In practice, many extension messages are meant for a single target, but are | ||
broadcast to all extension contexts. With the ability to uniquely identify a | ||
single extension context, we will modify messaging APIs (such as | ||
`runtime.sendMessage()` and `runtime.connect()`) to allow specifying specific | ||
targets that should receive a message. | ||
|
||
### Multi Page Architecture Fields (`DocumentLifeCycle`, `FrameType`, and `parentDocumentId`, and `parentFrameId`) | ||
rdcronin marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
[Multi Page Architecture](https://docs.google.com//1NginQ8k0w3znuwTiJ5qjYmBKgZDekvEPC22q0I4swxQ#heading=h.w1qo2n6sr8wn) | ||
caused | ||
[multiple changes](https://developer.chrome.com/blog/extension-instantnav/) to | ||
Chromium's | ||
[tabs API](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/tabs/), | ||
[scripting API](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/scripting/), | ||
and | ||
[web navigation API](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/webNavigation/). | ||
|
||
Among these changes are the additions of `DocumentLifecycle`, `FrameType`, and | ||
`parentDocumentId`. If there is sufficient demand, we can consider adding these | ||
fields to the `ExtensionContext` type. | ||
|
||
### runtime.getCurrentContext() | ||
|
||
We would like to provide an additional API, `runtime.getCurrentContext()`, to | ||
return the calling context. | ||
|
||
### Content Script Contexts | ||
|
||
[Content scripts](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/content_scripts/) | ||
run in a separate | ||
[Renderer](https://developer.chrome.com/blog/inside-browser-part3/) (and | ||
process) from the extension process. In this first version of the API, we will | ||
not include these contexts due to the complexity it entails. However, we would | ||
like to add these contexts in the future. | ||
|
||
With the content script additions, we may add new fields to `ExtensionContext`, | ||
such as `scriptUrl` (to indicate the content script's source). | ||
|
||
### Dev Tools Contexts | ||
|
||
Extensions can use the | ||
[Dev Tools API](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/devtools/] to | ||
extend the browser's developer tools. When doing so, these extensions can have | ||
a panel (an extension view) within the developer tools console. These views | ||
are a little different than others, though -- in Chromium, they commit to a | ||
different origin (one with a devtools:-scheme). These are also not currently | ||
returned from `chrome.extension.getViews()`. In the future, we will expand | ||
`runtime.getContexts()` with devtools context types to accommodate these. | ||
|
||
## Footnotes | ||
|
||
<sup>1</sup>: Non-main threads in a | ||
[Renderer](https://developer.chrome.com/blog/inside-browser-part3/) (where | ||
service workers run in Chromium) cannot access DOM concepts directly (they are | ||
only accessible from the main renderer thread). Service workers thus cannot | ||
synchronously access the JavaScript | ||
[`Window`](http://go/mdn/API/Window#instance_properties) objects provided by | ||
`extension.getViews()`. Supporting this access would take engineering years to | ||
change, and is likely undesirable due to the complexity and considerations it | ||
would introduce (threading and locking, slowing down main thread execution). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When used as a filter parameter, is it possible to use a match pattern for the value of
ContextFilter.documentUrl
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Currently, no. I've thought about if we'd want to support a different filter object (so you could specify e.g. array of types, match patterns, etc), but I wasn't sure if it was worth it. It seems like you'd normally either a) be able to specify an explicit URL or b) identify the contexts in different ways (say, by context type).
If folks feel strongly that we should support a richer filter from the beginning, I'm amenable to introducing a new ContextFilter type. Otherwise, we could potentially do this in the future (by supporting
choices
for the appropriate fields). Lemme know what y'all think.