Just a note, currently any plugin can add some custom file to hooks directory and it will be executed
<source-file src="src/someScript.js" target-dir="../../../../../hooks/pre_package"/> Thx! Sergey -----Original Message----- From: mmo...@google.com [mailto:mmo...@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal Mocny Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 6:28 PM To: dev Subject: Re: Proposal: hooks support for plugins 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 <shaz...@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/prodd > ocs/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 <purplecabb...@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 <mmo...@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 > >> <agri...@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-seg...@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-l > ib/templates/hooks-README.md#script-interface > >> > > > >> > > Thx! > >> > > Sergey > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Shazron [mailto:shaz...@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 > >> > > <jso...@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) > >> > > > >> > > >> >
