Migrate away from document.write? #1910
Comments
|
Modify the injection code snippetOptions: {
rule: {
match: /<head>/i,
fn(snippet, match) {
const {
groups: { src },
} = /src='(?<src>[^']+)'/u.exec(snippet);
return `<script src="${src}" async></script>${match}`;
},
},
}gulp complete code const createServe = cd => {
browserSync.init({
server: './build',
notify: false,
ui: false,
open: false,
snippetOptions: {
rule: {
match: /<head>/i,
fn(snippet, match) {
const {
groups: { src },
} = /src='(?<src>[^']+)'/u.exec(snippet);
return `<script src="${src}" async></script>${match}`;
},
},
},
});
cd();
};Code reference |
|
fixed in |
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Issue details
Chrome and Brave will display a warning in the console:
Steps to reproduce/test case
Please specify which version of Browsersync, node and npm you're running
It seems to me like using
document.writeis considered a bad-practice. Based on #1849 (comment) it was argued that it doesn't matter given its only running in development.It's understandable that it's a non-issue given it's only used in development, but it seems to me like it would be worth fixing to avoid the warning. Subjectively, I feel it sets a better example not using APIs like
document.writefor devs just getting started and future web devs.The warning does link to https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/08/removing-document-write but that really mostly affects production sites, which is a non-issue here.
Lastly, I would be willing to write a PR to fix it if a maintainer is onboard with changing it. My instinct would be to use
document.createElementanddocument.body.appendChildAPIs instead, open to recommendations if there's a better API. Would you be up for a PR to fix this?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: