I am looking for a way to interact with a web page and enter data to certain fields in it using an external program that interact with Firefox (or Chromium) web browser. The best I could find is the console commands for the browser, but they only let you go to a certain URL and not interact with the pages' content. I have also tried looking for some extension to do the job but I could not find any. Any suggestions?
You could create Chrome extension that communicates with your application via Chrome Native Messaging API: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/messaging.html#native-messaging
Take a look at Selenium and the tools mentioned at Selenium alternatives?.
Related
I am trying to come up with a way of having the touch bar on my mac display the network calls being made on the page I am navigating, I already have an extension that captures the exact network calls i need so If it is easier to just have an extension pass information to the mac touch bar then that would be even better.
I already tried using BetterTouchTool without luck.
No, the Chrome extension platform does not have TouchBar support. You may be able to accomplish your goal by creating a native app in Objective C or Swift and using the nativeMessaging API to share data between your extensions and application.
The new version of UFT 12.01 is supporting up to Chrome 36 when it comes to web content.
What about Chrome´s extensions though?
I read somewhere that they cannot be automated.
From the other hand side, when I use developer tools (12) I can identify buttons, textboxes etc.
Is it possible to test a Chrome extension by using UFT?
PS: I specifically try to automate one extension called POSTMAN - Rest Client (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/postman-rest-client/fdmmgilgnpjigdojojpjoooidkmcomcm?hl=en)
UFT's Chrome support doesn't work with other extensions since Chrome disallows extensions being injected into other extensions.
As a workaround you may be able to use UFT's Insight option to automate any technology that UFT doesn't support directly.
Specifically for the Postman extension, this is a simple REST Client. I Assume you want to use it in order to test your REST services rather than actually testing the Postman extension. If this is the case wouldn't a more natural way to approach this issue be to use a UFT API test?
API tests support calling and validating REST services with all the functionality previously available in HP's Service Test.
I would like to create an extension or app for the Chrome browser which would require access to a user's Google Calender (for creating new appointments).
I am unsure of which technology to better research and use, Chrome extensions or apps. My "app" wouldn't need much of a GUI, so I'm leaning towards extension — but I don't know if this would pose any difficulties for accessing a user's Google Calender to add an event.
Anyone one have any idea which technology is best for this situation, and why? Thanks!
Either, or... Go with an extension if you'd like.
I assume you've looked at the API reference?
https://developers.google.com/google-apps/calendar/
From there, I'd imagine you'd just need OAuth to authenticate the user. Here's the JS library:
https://code.google.com/p/google-api-javascript-client/
There are pros/cons of each types, apps or extensions.
Apps
If you would like to create a client application of Google Calendar which has many rich GUI components, this type will become a better solution.
In addition, Chrome apps can communicate with many hardware devices and other servers. Of course, your Chrome app can become as a server (that is, your app can open a server socket and accept a request from other client apps).
Chrome apps can be executed not depending on your Chrome Web browser. That is, Chrome apps cannot access to a context of your Chrome Web browser.
Probably, you don't want to get the pros above, I guess...
Extensions
If you would like to create a small UI for posting your schedule to Google Calendar, this type will become a better solution.
In addition, Chrome extensions can access to a context of your Chrome Web browser. That is, your extension can get page contents of each tab and inject your CSS and/or JS code. For example, your extension will get a URL of some opened tab and include it in a body of the posted schedule.
Chrome extensions completely depend on your Chrome Web browser. That is, your extension cannot execute independently.
Also, generally, high cost will be needed to develop Chrome apps than Chrome extensions. As the result, you should choose Chrome extensions, I believe.
All of the examples I've seen show apps launching in their own windows. This may be great an all for chromebook/chrome os, but is there still an option to launch in a browser tab?
No, there is no way to do that. Chrome Packaged Apps are not supposed to run inside a browser. You can, however, open URLs in a browser tab using window.open. But you won't have control of that tab after you issue the command.
If you need some sort of integration/control between your Chrome Packaged App and the browser, you can create an extension and make a communication pipe between the extension and the app - as long as both are running, using the chrome.runtime.sendMessage API.
See this sample for a simple code that does exactly that (two apps and one extension exchanging messages directly, without any server component).
chrome.app.window.create will create a new Window for an App.
If you want window manipulation, you should switch to chrome.tabs API and look for an extension instead of an App.
Reference
chrome.tabs
chrome.app.window
I have begun using Google Chrome as a primary browser, but I miss my Evernote extension, which can clip a web page directly to the local Evernote application. Is it possible for me to write an extension in Chrome that can do this?
Yes it is possible, through NPAPI, but your local application should be prepared for external communication. Code running in an NPAPI plugin has the full permissions of the current user and is not sandboxed or shielded from malicious input by Google Chrome in any way.
All this is described here:
http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/npapi.html
To avoid the NPAPI way, another idea would be to communicate with a custom local http server binded to localhost and send requests to it.
Disclaimer: Never tried it but theoretically it should work.
I don't think chrome allows this, simply because it would be dangerous to let plugins have extended priviledges, they even run in an extra, low-rights thread and only communicate with chrome itself through pipes.