Addition of missing devtools details

[rebloor]

Summary

Add details, previously missing for devtools features not supported in Firefox

Related issues

• PR Remove browser-specific references in "Extend the developer tools" article content#28132 containing the Extend the developer tools article update
• PR
  Complete devtools.inspectedWindow content#28131 containing complementary updates to complete devtools.inspectedWindow documentation coverage
• PR Complete devtools.panels content#28223 containing complementary update to complete devtools.network documentation coverage

Fixes #16859

[Rob--W]

Question: why are some features of edge not a mirror of Chrome?

[rebloor]

@Rob--W

Question: why are some features of edge not a mirror of Chrome?

Because I missed updating them from the copied content. I will fix that.

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged.

[queengooborg]

Hey @Rob--W, looks like this has been waiting on your review for a while!

[Rob--W]

While I'm not against adding explicit entries for API support statuses in the BCD, the BCD also link to MDN documentation that haven't been merged yet.

I am reluctant to merge these MDN articles, because they document Chrome-only behavior. It's my intent to revisit these PRs eventually, but it's a low priority for me.

[Elchi3]

Should we try to get a Chrome reviewer for this one?

[Rob--W]

That's not necessary. I am familiar with this API in both Firefox and Chrome.

The difficulty here is presenting the content in a way such that it is obvious which parts are cross-browser and which ones are Chrome-only. The current documentation lists the least common denominator, so anyone who relies on that can build an extension that works across browsers.

If we add the Chrome-specific bits here as well, then I'm concerned that an extension dev would try out the documentation and then become disappointed when they discovered that the documented features don't actually work in Firefox.

[queengooborg]

I think that so long as the browser compatibility data is up to date, then we should be fine on that front. Web extensions don't have a standard specification that we can refer to, so since browsers are free to implement what they want to, I wouldn't expect much cross-browser support anyways.

[rebloor]

Also addresses #16859

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged.

[queengooborg]

This PR has been sitting around in need of a review for a while, and is the second oldest PR open. We should get this reviewed and landed, or close it!

[Rob--W]

I think that it is okay for BCD notes to be added, even without mdn documentation. @rebloor could you update the PR and tag dotproto for review? If there is anything that requires my attention, please pm me.

[caugner]

@rebloor Since this PR updates support data for Chromium, Firefox, and Safari, and we seem to be differently certain about each of the browsers, how about we split this up and extract Chromium/Safari changes into two separate PRs? I think it'll be easier to land it that way.

PS: Meanwhile eef1292 has added some Chromium data for the devtools API.

[caugner]

@rebloor Please let me know if there is anything I can help with to advance this PR.

[rebloor]

@caugner Sorry for not responding earlier. This one has been held up as I originally tied it to MDN doc changes for the APIs but it became subject to an, as yet unresolved, discussion about how far we go in the documenting features that aren't available on Firefox. In looking back, however, I do notice that Rob was happy to add the BCD.

I'm also not sure how much of a challenge we have in eliminating the "version_added": true references.

Before your Monday, I'll have a look at:

• resolving the merge conflicts
• figure out what we need to do to remove the remaining "true" refs
• determine whether splitting the Firefox changes is useful.

[caugner]

I looked into all the version_added: true instances.

[rebloor]

Thanks @caugner - more from me by Monday

[rebloor]

@caugner thanks for tracking down the version information. I've incorporated the changes. If you're happy with the update, so am I, please go ahead and merge.

[caugner]

@rebloor I had another look at those remaining ranges, and some of them appeared to be wrong (probably my own fault):

[caugner]

So panels.sources was first documented in Chrome 38 (chromium/chromium@8e78a4d), and referencedSourcesPanel, for which documentation was only added in Chrome 41 (chromium/chromium@35a3d25).

Also, createSidebarPane on SourcesPanel was first documented in Chrome 41 (chromium/chromium@35a3d25).

I will see if I can dig into blink history to find out more, but overall this suggests these were added in or before Chrome 38. In Chrome 18, createSidebarPane was only added on the ElementsPanel, and this is likely where prior confusion came from.

[caugner]

@rebloor Sorry for these extra rounds, but I think this is finally in a state we can comfortably merge it?!

[rebloor]

Thanks @caugner was all rather old detail details to track down.