cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Proposal: hooks support for plugins
Date Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:27:59 GMT
Whatever the decision for default prompt/no-prompt, I suggest we add a flag
to do the reverse for anyone concerned.

Aka, --prompt-for-plugin-hooks or --no-prompt-for-plugin-hooks


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:

> Echoing what Jesse said - having a prompt will defeat tools,
> especially since early on we kinda had consensus not to add in a
> security layer.
> The middle way is to add a CLI option to "auto-accept" all prompts
> with Y, kinda like a lot of command line tools. I think there is this
> pattern in Windows command line tools
> (
> https://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/copy.mspx?mfr=true
> ),
> not sure *nix, I think for *nix the pattern is only prompt if a flag
> is added, the opposite.
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Prompting would make it nearly impossible for third party tools to use,
> > there is no one to accept.
> > PGBuild will allow scripts, but they will only be for pre-verified
> plugins,
> > just like they deal with compiling arbitrary native code ... the
> > script-exec is NOT a new backdoor in this case, just another window.
> > When you type `npm install ios-sim` unknown, unverified (by you) scripts
> > are run ... how is this any different?  Any npm package with a
> > preinstall script
> > will do the same, I thought we agreed that this is a community/social
> issue
> > and not a technical/framework issue.
> >
> >>> - Not a fan of "<script>", "<hook>" might be better
> > I agree, or <hook-script>
> >
> >>> - context.commonModules is a great idea, but I don't think exposing
> >>> requireCordovaModule or elementtree is a good idea.
> > +1 Let's not create tech debt if we can avoid it.
> >
> >>> - Since you're making a new class, please don't call it "Hooker"
> > +1 some other ideas, ScriptEscort, PimpMyApp, Hookah
> >
> >
> >
> > @purplecabbage
> > risingj.com
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> What about prompting during plugin install instead of prepare?  "This
> >> plugin has hooks, would you like continue? Y/N"
> >>
> >> I'm concerned about being prompted on each prepare, especially in the
> face
> >> of --watch type scripts.  I'm also not sure that plugin authors should
> >> worry about supporting the "no" use case.  If a hook is optional, you
> can
> >> split it out into a separate plugin that is optionally installed.  If
> its
> >> not optional, you should probably not install the plugin at all if you
> >> don't want to run the hook.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> >> -Michal
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Finally got to having a look. Lots of neat stuff in there! Some
> specific
> >> > feedback:
> >> >
> >> > - Not a fan of "<script>", "<hook>" might be better
> >> > - context.commonModules is a great idea, but I don't think exposing
> >> > requireCordovaModule or elementtree is a good idea.
> >> >   - E.g. what if we want to drop our dependency on elementtree?
> >> >   - I think it's important that we only expose cordova-lib's public
> API
> >> to
> >> > hooks.
> >> >   - For the same reason, let's not expose cordovaUtil. just make the
> >> > top-level "cordova" object available. If there are other APIs that are
> >> > needed, we should add them to the public API.
> >> > - Since you're making a new class, please don't call it "Hooker"
> >> > ("HookManager", "HookRunner", etc)
> >> > - Looks like you already added "ScriptsRunner.js"
> >> >   - Don't capitalize the file unless it exports as constructor
> >> >   - Maybe Hooker can be combined with ScriptsRunner?
> >> >
> >> > Supporting node hooks and adding plugin hooks are two big changes.
> Didn't
> >> > look to see how the commits had things split up, but I'd like to see
> one
> >> > change go in separately from the other.
> >> >
> >> > I'm a bit concerned that plugin hooks won't work well due to it being
> >> hard
> >> > to write x-platform, server builds like PGBuild, Telerik won't want to
> >> have
> >> > hooks run on their servers, Thym likely can't support it.
> >> > Security-wise, I'd feel better about it if we prompted the user before
> >> > enabling plugin scripts to run. Just a simple Y/N confirmation would
> be
> >> > enough. E.g.: "Plugin org.foo.bar contains an installation hook.
> Allow it
> >> > to run?"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Sergey Grebnov (Akvelon) <
> >> > v-segreb@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Updated docs[1] as per review. Looking forward to community feedback
> >> > > regarding:
> >> > > 1 . Idea of defining hook scripts via config.xml and plugin.xml
> >> > > 2. New Script Interface for .js files (not used for /hooks scripts
> for
> >> > > backward compatibility)
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]https://github.com/apache/cordova-lib/pull/55
> >> > > [2]
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/MSOpenTech/cordova-lib/blob/CB-6481-hooks/cordova-lib/templates/hooks-README.md#script-interface
> >> > >
> >> > > Thx!
> >> > > Sergey
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Shazron [mailto:shazron@gmail.com]
> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 9:26 PM
> >> > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> >> > > Subject: Re: Proposal: hooks support for plugins
> >> > >
> >> > > Ah ok. However I think since it is effectively deprecated we should
> not
> >> > > advertise the old way as a supported way to do things but add
> another
> >> > > section saying that support for "./cordova/hooks" may be removed in
> the
> >> > > future, and perhaps give a timeline for removal.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Josh Soref <jsoref@blackberry.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > Shazron wrote:‎
> >> > > >> from the Cordova Hooks doc:
> >> > > >> "This directory used to exist at .cordova/hooks, but has
now been
> >> > > >> moved to the project root."
> >> > > >> -> doesn't this imply that .cordova/hooks
> >> > > >> does not work anymore, you should use hooks/ ?‎
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I believe it's supported for backwards compatibility (just as
> >> > > > www/config.xml is) ‎
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message