|
Kadir Topal
@atopal
|
6. pro |
|
@bz_moz If it would be useful, we can put this question and others like it on the CORS mdn page for broad input.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Boris
@bz_moz
|
7. pro |
|
I'd love it if we had a good way to poll web developers about this sort of thing.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mike Taylor
@miketaylr
|
6. pro |
|
Error seems to make sense (but it likely doesn't matter, just surfacing it is a win).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Boris
@bz_moz
|
6. pro |
|
It's already surfaced, as warning, in Firefox. Trying to decide whether to switch it to error.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Harald Kirschner 🔥🦊🛠
@digitarald
|
6. pro |
|
(biased) As error for parity otherwise, devs won't find them where they expect them. They should also be console grouped as they get noisy for some sites.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Boris
@bz_moz
|
6. pro |
|
Hmm. What does console grouping mean in terms of how they get reported? Right now we report them with "category" set to the specific type of CORS error, but I don't know what console does with the result, exactly...
|
||
|
|
||
|
Julien Wajsberg
@jwajsberg
|
6. pro |
|
I don't really mind as long as they're good.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Boris
@bz_moz
|
6. pro |
|
So that is a separate question: what constitutes "good" here? The current strings Firefox uses are searchfox.org/mozilla-centra… and seem a bit too verbose and clunky to me. Still trying to decide what those should look like.
|
||
|
|
||
|
soapdog (mastodon: @soapdog@toot.cafe)
@soapdog
|
6. pro |
|
if they prevent the request from going through they should be shown as errors in my opinion
|
||
|
|
||
|
Boris
@bz_moz
|
7. pro |
|
That's my feeling about it too.
Now what about CSP violations? ;)
|
||
|
|
||