F133 ServiceWorker in Workers #36726
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
Content:WebAPI
|
Preview URLs
External URLs (1)URL:
(comment last updated: 2024-11-22 03:20:18) |
github-actions
bot
added
size/m
hamishwillee
requested review from
sideshowbarker and
wbamberg
and removed request for
a team
|
@sideshowbarker @wbamberg I've put you both as reviewers. I hope to do more on this, but if I do I will be coming back to it later. I don't need this for the docs I have to do for FF release, I just went too far down the rabbit hole to waste the time before I realised that. If you don't get to this I'll build on it later. |
| @@ -107,7 +107,8 @@ This could be for the following reasons: | |||
|
|
|||
| After your service worker is registered, the browser will attempt to install then activate the service worker for your page/site. | |||
|
|
|||
| The `install` event is fired when an installation is successfully completed. The `install` event is generally used to populate your browser's offline caching capabilities with the assets you need to run your app offline. To do this, we use Service Worker's storage API — [`cache`](/en-US/docs/Web/API/Cache) — a global object on the service worker that allows us to store assets delivered by responses, and keyed by their requests. This API works in a similar way to the browser's standard cache, but it is specific to your domain. The contents of the cache are kept until you clear them. | |||
| The `install` event is the first event that is fired after registration is successfully completed and the service worker executes. | |||
| It is emitted only once for every service worker, and is generally used to populate your browser's offline caching capabilities with the assets you need to run your app offline. To do this, we use Service Worker's storage API — [`cache`](/en-US/docs/Web/API/Cache) — a global object on the service worker that allows us to store assets delivered by responses, and keyed by their requests. This API works in a similar way to the browser's standard cache, but it is specific to your domain. The contents of the cache are kept until you clear them. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"It is emitted only once for every service worker" - is this quite right? Isn't it also emitted when a service worker is updated? (e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API/Using_Service_Workers#updating_your_service_worker)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, This is ambiguous. Fixed by https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36726/files#r1853175760
| The exception is also raised if the `scriptURL` or `scope URL` path contains the case-insensitive ASCII "%2f" (`*`) or "%5c" (`=`) | ||
|
|
||
| - `SecurityError` {{domxref("DOMException")}} | ||
| - : The `scriptURL` is not a potentially trustworthy origin, such as `localhost` or an `https` URL. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand how we throw one exception if the scheme is http or https (see above) when actually only https is allowed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, this is odd. Reading through the spec the checks are first on http and https which gives you a typeerror, Then later on there is a check on it being a potentially trustworthy origin.
So to answer your question, localhost considered a potentially trustworthy URL even if it is the normal http localhost.
So http is allowed in localhost.
Does that make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note, I don't talk about these requirements up in scriptURL because they are implied by the secure context header.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does that make sense?
Yes, it does (I saw what you had here looked correct per spec, I just thought the spec was weird. But what you say makes sense).
files/en-us/web/api/service_worker_api/using_service_workers/index.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: sideshowbarker <[email protected]>
|
Thanks @wbamberg @sideshowbarker . Suggestions/feedback integrated. One open question. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 thank you Hamish! I want to say, we should have a standalone article on SW lifecycle, but I doubt if we could do better than https://web.dev/articles/service-worker-lifecycle.
|
You're welcome. I hope to extend some of this information to the registration class too in the next few days.
Yeah, that's a good doc. It's a pity we can't copy it. Reading https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API/Using_Service_Workers did not give me a great view on the questions I had around how this all works. It is hard to fairly compare two docs that approach a similar problem in such different way and level, but I do feel that I understood what service workers were trying to achieve better and more quickly with the web.dev doc. |
FF133 supports WorkerNavigator.serviceWorker, which now returns a ServiceWorkerContainer in worker scope.
This was supposed to update the docs appropriately for ^^^ but actually there isn't much to say about that. However I did notice some mistakes, and got thoroughly confused by some docs, so this is "tangentially related fixes" to those problems.
Related docs work can be tracked in #36532