possibilities for a Firefox version?

[dariendark]

I've verified the rest of the issue and either this is a really disliked subject or nobody has come up and asked. But are there any plans to create either a Firefox add-on or greasemonkey script version of this amazing program. Its just sad that I have to use chrome (which constantly crashes on my old laptop) in order to visit okcupid properly. Hope to hear from you soon. Keep up the great work.

[phoebejaffe]

I would love for a FF version to exist, but I sadly don't have the time to create it (or really to maintain this one properly). But if someone wanted to build one, I'd be excited :)

[joallard]

I just read Developing Cross-Browser Extensions, and looking at the code for octotree, it looks like it wouldn't be too hard to make this into a cross-browser extension. It looks like it's just a matter of making a Fx-specific manifest, and reusing the same script files, maybe with a few adjustments here an there.

On the reverse, maintaining a fork for a Firefox version would mean regular merging and patching.

@benjaffe if there's a PR that gets us there, are you open to merging it in?

[phoebejaffe]

@joallard Absolutely!!

[joallard]

Sounds good. I'll see if I can put something together. Some files might move around a little bit though, as it's a proposal that entails some significant architectural change. (In case of anything, I have pretty good git-fu) @benjaffe that's okay?

[phoebejaffe]

@joallard Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy week!

Sounds good to me. A few things:

1. I probably won't be testing in Firefox, but that shouldn't be a big concern since I'm no longer actively developing the extension (just bug fixes when OkC redesigns their interface)

2. I'm not able to be super responsive in terms of rolling out changes, but will definitely get to things eventually. Sorry I can't promise more than that.

3. If you want to create the Firefox version of the plugin and submit it to them, I'm happy to link to it from anywhere.

[joallard]

So, I had gone on changing some things to make this into a multi-browser buildable extension, and then I noticed something. Browsers recently adopted the WebExtensions interface, which provides for a common API for extensions for all browsers, pretty much similar to what Chrome extensions are already.

So I loaded into Firefox as is in January, used it a bit in debug mode, and I can't really find any significant bugs. I'll keep looking, but I think that, quite stupidly, it's already ready to be released in beta as-is.

The only changes I'd suggest would be to: (a) rename this repo into okc-plugin and populate the NPM package accordingly, and (b) stamp the version 3.0.0(-beta) to signal "from now on, we aim to be Firefox compatible".

I'll be making a PR in the next few minutes with a few cosmetic fixes and polish, and we should be good to go. I volunteer to help a bit with the maintaining and issue debugging, I'd love to help polish some other few things. @benjaffe how about that?

[phoebejaffe]

This sounds fantastic! I'll take a look in the coming days. Thank you Jonathan!

…

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Jonathan Allard ***@***.***> wrote: So, I had gone on changing some things to make this into a multi-browser buildable extension, and then I noticed something. Browsers recently adopted the WebExtensions <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions> interface, which provides for a common API for extensions for all browsers, pretty much similar to what Chrome extensions are already. So I loaded into Firefox as is in January, used it a bit in debug mode, and I can't really find any significant bugs. I'll keep looking, but I think that, quite stupidly, it's already ready to be released in beta as-is. The only changes I'd suggest would be to: (a) rename this repo into okc-plugin and populate the NPM package accordingly, and (b) stamp the version 3.0.0(-beta) to signal "from now on, we aim to be Firefox compatible". I'll be making a PR in the next few minutes with a few cosmetic fixes and polish, and we should be good to go. I volunteer to help a bit with the maintaining and issue debugging. @benjaffe <https://github.com/benjaffe> how about that? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#168 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAi_FLAJPqZIapqW3nix5VxN8wLRgnE_ks5rxBCxgaJpZM4IYGO7> .

-- Ben Jaffe, 510.545.2365 Developer at Facebook, Github <https://github.com/benjaffe/>, LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaffe> Podcasts: GeekSpeak <http://geekspeak.org/>, Linear Digressions <http://lineardigressions.com/>

[stn4d89]

Lovely! I have a number of friends who tell me that OKC will never be the same for them after discovering this extension. I concur.

…

On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:18, Ben Jaffe ***@***.***> wrote: This sounds fantastic! I'll take a look in the coming days. Thank you Jonathan! On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Jonathan Allard ***@***.***> wrote: > So, I had gone on changing some things to make this into a multi-browser > buildable extension, and then I noticed something. Browsers recently > adopted the WebExtensions > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions> interface, > which provides for a common API for extensions for all browsers, pretty > much similar to what Chrome extensions are already. > > So I loaded into Firefox as is in January, used it a bit in debug mode, > and I can't really find any significant bugs. I'll keep looking, but I > think that, quite stupidly, it's already ready to be released in beta as-is. > > The only changes I'd suggest would be to: (a) rename this repo into > okc-plugin and populate the NPM package accordingly, and (b) stamp the > version 3.0.0(-beta) to signal "from now on, we aim to be Firefox > compatible". > > I'll be making a PR in the next few minutes with a few cosmetic fixes and > polish, and we should be good to go. I volunteer to help a bit with the > maintaining and issue debugging. @benjaffe <https://github.com/benjaffe> > how about that? > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#168 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAi_FLAJPqZIapqW3nix5VxN8wLRgnE_ks5rxBCxgaJpZM4IYGO7> > . > -- Ben Jaffe, 510.545.2365 Developer at Facebook, Github <https://github.com/benjaffe/>, LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaffe> Podcasts: GeekSpeak <http://geekspeak.org/>, Linear Digressions <http://lineardigressions.com/> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#168 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOnf1cTJkM9vqr0106988FE9LffFuzvqks5rxkHsgaJpZM4IYGO7>.

[phoebejaffe]

I'm amazed at how little code is in that PR!

Can you give a quick description of how this works? What I'm hearing is that the code, as it is after this PR, can be loaded into FF as an extension and it just works. Is that right? Seems too good to be true.

And related, what are the steps for releasing this for FF?

[joallard]

Yep, pretty much! I was pretty amazed when it worked out-of-the-box too. I think there are a few kinks with the build process, but as to the extension itself, it seems to run fine. It could use some love in a few places, but nothing that can't be fixed later.