FYI for userscript authors

[tuff_ghost]

If your userscript @requires jQuery, and your users are on Firefox, it's going to break JS running on Ao3 since the latest deploy, particularly the JS which shows modal boxes and hides the Share code on works.

If you're like me you were @requiring jQuery because you wanted your script to run in Chrome on Tampermonkey (where your script is sandboxed away from the host jQuery instance), and you didn't want to maintain two different copies of your script for Greasemonkey and Tampermonkey.

So, @require jQuery breaks stuff in Firefox, but you still need jQuery in Chrome. The solution is to get your jQuery instance from unsafeWindow.jQuery - this will point to the host instance of jQuery.


(function($) {
// your code which uses jQuery normally as $
})(unsafeWindow.jQuery);

Comments

[jjhunter]

From your keyboard to admin's ear!

[tuff_ghost]

ah no, they were beating me up in the chatroom, demanding I write this. Ao3 devs are very cruel.

[jjhunter]

Well, as one of the people who has been *plagued* by wacky navigation display issues using the site on Firefox since the most recent site deploy, you have my deep & abiding thanks.

[amalthia]

is this something individual users can update in the script?

[tuff_ghost]

Yes there's no reason you can't, if the script's author is being slow. It will be "Edit this user script" in your Fx addon options page.

If you mean can someone who doesn't know anything about JS edit scripts to make this change, yes you still can but you will either need to learn a tiny bit about JS, or exercise your human birthright pattern matching ability well enough to do the job :D

[amalthia]

I'll give it a try. :) Thanks!

[poulpette]

Could you please expand a bit on what you mean by // your code which uses jQuery normally as $?

[tuff_ghost]

That comment is just meant to represent the rest of any userscript's code. Because it's wrapped in a closure, you can have your own reference to jQuery inside, and name it whatever you want (the conventional $ being preferable to "unsafeWindow.jQuery" for terseness/cleanliness) without reassigning $ in the global scope.

Does this make more sense?

(function($) {
    // 500 lines of code where you do all kinds of cool stuff
    // using jQuery, but referencing it as $ rather than unsafeWindow.jQuery
    $('body').addClass('sparkly');
})(unsafeWindow.jQuery)

[poulpette]

It does, thank you very much. I wasn't sure that was what you meant. Does this also mean that I'd be using whatever version of jQuery the AO3 is currently using?

[(Anonymous)]

Yep. It's not just the same source, it's the same instance, so you should even have access to whatever jQuery plugins the host site is running. (which is actually the whole reason for this post; userscripts were replacing the host instance after a plugin had loaded, killing the plugin)

also, computers are not psychic

[tuff_ghost]

^^^ that's me

[poulpette]

So I suppose I no longer need the @require line? and the script will still run for Chrome users?

Thank you for you help :)

[tuff_ghost]

Nope, yep :D

[tinny]

Thank you so much, this is really helping. I had figured out that it worked again when I disabled Greasemonkey, but since there wasn't just one specific script wrong, but all of the ao3 scripts I've installed, I didn't know who to ask first.

[flamebyrd]

Thanks very much for this! I had one script that included jQuery and had scratched my head for a long time trying to figure out how to include the Archive's jQuery instance.

On a somewhat unrelated note... A while back I made my own clone of TumblrSavior for the archive (literally a clone - I used all his code too, with permission). Now I want to tweak it to be a little more intelligent and use jQuery, but I see you've already made a more intelligent version! I wanted to add the ability to filter by Work ID, and for my own education I'd like to try adding a configuration interface (using GM_setValue etc, or possibly http://userscripts.org/guides/11).

Anyway tl;dr, I don't think userscripts.org supports forking, so do you mind if I use your code as a basis for this? It seems like your approach is pretty much the same as the one I was pondering. XD

[tuff_ghost]

That's fine, I don't mind at all. I had the scripts as github gists earlier, but people found them too difficult to install, that's the only reason I moved to userscripts.

You might find browser storage useful for what you're trying to do; I never looked at GM_setValue but I found localstorage pretty easy to work with.

[flamebyrd]

*nods* I think userscripts.org is a great place to store them, just for the ease-of-installation factor.

Thanks, I'll also look into localStorage - I had considered it but my non-comprehensive Googling indicated that it might be a little flakey with userscripts.