I've fixed this before and, I don't know what happened, but Chrome is doing it again.
Here is a screenshot.
I'm attempting to search for dev-n. It seems the predictive behavior has reverted. I want to see my frequently visited URL - which includes the string dev-n. BUT, I see completely unwanted and unrelated results first!? There's an author, a city, some other stuff... and all I want is for the 8th item here - a NodeRED project URL I visit several times a week, to be 1st! I know this is possible. Why this is the default... is beyond me. It's a UX nightmare.
Related
Currently for my back button I'm using window.history.back() which, in itself is working properly. My issue is with an iframe that I have for refreshing sessions, example
<iframe src="https://example.com/some/path?gcp-iap-mode=SESSION_REFRESHER" style="width:0;height:0;border:0; border:none;"></iframe>
Path in my project represents current url, so it keeps changing every time I change locations. Now, with the source the iframe has, it keeps throwing 404 and getting into my history so instead of clicking back button once, I have to do it at least two times - first times it fails as it tries to reach randompath?gcp-iap-mode=SESSION_REFRESHER and then it goes to proper path.
My question is, is there a way for me to check the "back" value, to see if the "back" value has a specific query (for example gcp-iap-mode part), or check if it's the same as a current location (duplicate) so I can skip that entry (and couple of back steps) and go back to a different path in history stack?
Seems an issue like this is common in iframes. I tried looking at it from a wrong perspective, by looking for ways to change history where the only thing that needed to be changed is the iframe itself.
Basically when we only change the src attribute of the iframe it gets rendered again and again and the src gets pushed to history stack. What we needed here was the iframe to unmount and the soultion to all of that was pretty simple - add a key prop to the iframe.
This is a blog page that helped me, so if somebody wants to read more:
https://www.aleksandrhovhannisyan.com/blog/react-iframes-back-navigation-bug/
When users request a password reset, they get an email with a link to generate a password reset code. This link is valid for 24 hours and can be re-used within the 24 hours to generate a new code if the first is lost or forgotten. When users double click the link, two codes are getting generated, leading to user confusion about which to use (the second code invalidates the first code with the way it has been developed).
Since the link in the email is just an html a tag, I'm not sure how I can keep users from double clicking the link.
This sounds like you're facing the XY problem. Your actual issue is that users get confused by visits in a quick succession causing a code that was just generated to be invalid, rather than the fact that the link can be clicked twice.
From a security point of view, these kind of links should really be single-use, and the user should request a new e-mail if they want to perform the action again. Assuming this is something you're forced to do, I believe the best compromise would be to limit code generation to a time frame, so visits within, let's say, 5-10 seconds would result in the same code being shown to the user, based on the server's time.
Implementing any CSS based solution for this that'd work across every e-mail client out there is challenging enough (if at all possible), and I doubt any self-respecting e-mail client is going to let you run any sort of JavaScript to intercept the event.
The following works in a modern browser on an actual web page, but this is not just a bad idea, it's also probably not going to work if you try to use it in an e-mail. I'm providing it here just for the sake of completeness, showing that it's somewhat possible, but please do not rely on this to fix the underlying issue.
<style>a:focus { pointer-events: none }</style>
<p>This is some text, here's a link you can't double click by the way.</p>
Okay so here is my problem. I have developed a framework which does the following:
If, for example, you have four webpages... but you only want to allow users to reach the "4th" webpage after progressing through pages 1-3 sequentially - I have built this functionality (basically I set an encrypted cookie keeping track of what the user has completed thus allowing to know what they should be able to access). There are two parts of it:
1) If a page does NOT have a quiz, the user must only visit the webpages sequentially to be allowed to view the 4th page in the "progression".
2) However, if a page has a quiz on it, the user must successfully pass the quiz to go on to the next sequential page.
Now... Here is the real biggie... The last page will often be a web form which, obviously, I only want an individual to fill out and submit if they have reached the form by sequentially getting to that last page in the progression... BUT I found a flaw in the system. If someone were to go completely through the progression and fill the form out... they could delete their browser's "form data" and go "back" to the form and allow a friend to fill the form out. That would be detrimental to the system, and the users who will be navigating this progression are GOING to look for ways to get around going through it.
Some of the suggestions I will probably get will not be possible given the larger framework I am in, but rather than list all of the impossibilities I would like to see what you guys thought would be a way of getting around this issue?
P.S. This functionality is built in HTML and ColdFusion.
Thank you for any feedback, it is a great help!
EDIT:
Keep in mind the user must be able to back track any previous page they already completed.
I work for a restaurant guide in the NW of the UK and we basically have featured restaurants (the ones who pay a monthly sub) and non-featured restaurants (the ones who get a basic free listing).
We were looking to get some kind of popup appearing on the non-featured restaurants, but only if they came from an external site, e.g Google.
So the steps would be:
1) User goes to google and puts in "name of unfeatured restaurant"
2) Our company comes up with the basic listing of that restaurant
3) User clicks the link but is then presented with a popup of featured restaurants
But, we would only need the popup to appear if the user has come from an external site. So if they were they came internally from our website the popup wouldn't show.
We use ASP at work and I was thinking it may possibly need some kind of a variable being passed through, or maybe something to do with cookies but I'm not an expert on the ASP side.
Hope someone can help on this :)
To see where a user came from you can try:
<%=Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_Referer")%>
This would contain the referring URL. if you want to use it on subsequent pages, you'll have to store it ofcourse in a cookie or session variable.
I am writing a Google Chrome Extension and trying to make the transition to coding in HTML, CSS and Javascript from the kind of coding I did 40 years ago. It's a big learning curve but a little bit of console logging would help a lot. (Who remembers the green phosphor displays on the old iron-core memory Sperry Univacs? Now there was a console that could tell you what was going on - mount a tape, change a diskpack or put more paper in the printer.) But I digress.
Just a few days ago, I was able to send messages to the Google Chrome DOM Inspector console log from my content script or background page like this:
console.log="RECEIVED REQUEST FROM CONTENT SCRIPT PEEK.JS";
Later if I inspected the page where that code was injected, I would see that exact same message on the console. If that line executed four times, I would see four instances of that messages in sequence on the console. It was simple but beautiful.
Now, nothing appears on the console unless I type in "console.log" and in this case I see only the last instance of the message. What's the problem here? Did I toggle something off in the debugger? Am I writing the code wrong? Should it be: "console.log("Message Here");" - (this always returns an error) ?
I have spent literally hours trying to find the answer to this question and I can only surmise that the question is so simple that even a well-educated child could answer it. The alternative is to spend more hours trying to find my bugs thru implication or from alert messages. Better to spend my hours learning how to effectively use the inspector for debugging.
For example, yesterday after restructuring what was once working code so that it would pass an array to background from content instead of background requesting each item successively from content, the extension broke, as might be expected. The console displays one error message: "Error during tabs executeScript: Unknown error." with a link that says "chrome/ExtensionProcessBindings:95" on the far right of that same line. Obviously the error message is almost useless. Clicking on the link brings me to the resources panel which displays a blank frame to the right with the words "background.html" This appears to be useless as well.
How is this information at all helpful? It took me another six hours to figure out that I had moved a variable definition to another place in the code so that it was not defined at the time the executeScript line was executed. Had the error message said that a parameter was undefined in executeScript, I could have found it in about ten minutes.
So back to the original question - I WANT A SIMPLE ANSWER - don't tell me to write a function. I saw the console displaying what I wanted two days ago without writing any functions.
Here is your SIMPLE ANSWER: Instead of
console.log="RECEIVED REQUEST FROM CONTENT SCRIPT PEEK.JS";
You should use
console.log("RECEIVED REQUEST FROM CONTENT SCRIPT PEEK.JS");
For console.log():
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/console.log
I would recommend searching the Mozilla Developer Network for documentation on JavaScript and many browser technologies.
My general suggestion to help with mistyped or out of scoped variables is to use strict javascript:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/Strict_mode
This makes certain JavaScript idioms into errors which are detected earlier, and which give more helpful diagnostics. (The quick version is to put the single line "use strict"; at the top of your js files, or if that causes to many problems you can put it as the first line inside any function to do function-by-function migration.)
The reason why console.log = blah would show blah on the console in some situations is that in JS, <left side> = <right side expression> is an expression which evaluates to the same value as just <right side expression>, but it has the side affect of also assigning to <left side>. (This is similar to C assignment expressions.)
Then, in the context you were in, the console will display the result of any expression evaluation. This is different from explicitly calling console.log() which will display the arguments as the intended side effect of that function.
So in that case you were overwriting the standard console.log function with a string, and the entire expression evaluates to that string value, and the console's builtin behavior (not the console.log() function!) would display the result of your evaluation.
In JS most things are mutable, and you can overwrite all kinds of fields and variables, so be aware of this potential gotcha!
Also, a general recommendation for seeking help on the web:
For sites like StackOverflow is to limit your post to a very specific single question. This is because people with similar problems will come here based on web searches or other links, and they need to figure out if this page helps them with their particular problem quickly. If they have to read through paragraphs with multiple questions or anecdotes, this really slows them down. I would guess that's why this question has been downvoted.
If you have multiple questions, make separate posts. StackOverflow isn't a good site for anecdotes about your experience in the past. FWIW- I personally found your background as a programmer on 70's era machines interesting, but many readers may get lost in the details. Those kinds of anecdotes could make a good blog post.