Open Bug 1632796 Opened 3 years ago Updated 1 month ago

add support for "origins" and "excludeOrigins" parameters for chrome.browsingData.remove

Categories

(WebExtensions :: Untriaged, enhancement, P3)

75 Branch
enhancement

Tracking

(Not tracked)

People

(Reporter: feedbro.reader, Unassigned)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

(Keywords: parity-chrome)

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0

Steps to reproduce:

Currently Firefox doesn't support "origins" or "excludeOrigins" parameters for WebExtension API chrome.browsingData.remove

"hostnames" supports only cookies and local storage (but not for example IndexedDB).

Expected results:

Please add support for those parameters so that they behave similarly as in Chrome:
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/browsingData

Bugbug thinks this bug should belong to this component, but please revert this change in case of error.

Product: Firefox → WebExtensions

I am not sure if we should align our API here, but "origins" is IMO actually the better terminology.

Blocks: 1340511

Currently the API is much more powerful and useful on Chrome. It's not just about naming the parameter but the actual functionality as well (see the Chrome docs). Is there any good reason not to provide similar functionality on Firefox?

Keywords: parity-chrome
Priority: -- → P3
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
See Also: → 1715823

The API syntax in Chrome/Chromium is especially useful for a scenario where an Adblocker Extension tries to provide an allowlist-based concept, and only the manually confirmed domains are trustworthy - whereas all other domains and their browsing data that could be used for tracking should be removed from the cache (this includes indexedDB, WebSQL database, cookies, service worker data, filesystem API data, etc).

Without the implementation of the "excludeOrigins"-like API, there's no way to provide this information, as the Browser Extension would have to correlate all requests ever done, and store its own database for that.

What's the state on this feature as of now?

Severity: normal → S3
See Also: → 1797376
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.