webstore | Web Store eCommerce solution for Lightspeed | Frontend Framework library

Phil's comment is in the right direction: Few browsers support the "ipfs://" scheme natively.

Currently the browsers which support it out of the box are Brave and Opera, each handles it a bit differently however - so test your code.

The safe cross-browser approach at this point is to extract the CID and create a new URL to address that CID through an IPFS HTTP gateway, and fetch() that URL instead.

You can find a list of IPFS HTTP gateways here:

https://ipfs.github.io/public-gateway-checker/

There are 4 things in this page:

1. Items get loads when you scroll down (Initially it shows only 30 items)
2. Items rankings also loads with scroll
3. There is pagination if we want to get items from other pages
4. Correct locator (Xpath, CSS etc)

Therefore in our code, if we are not waiting for page/rankings to load completely, we will not get values.

Below code retunes all names and ranking details for all the available pages(in this case only 2):

Imports:

You can use a middleware package like express-fileupload to handle file uploads. Here is the documentation for the package Link.

Assuming the name of the input for the image is image, you can access the image's information from req.files.image. This object contains the file represented in a buffer and its mimetype. Now you can store these two information in the database like this:

Although I'm not sure whose approval you're trying to seek, IMHO, installing an authenticator on your browser is not a very good security practice. The whole point of having a Two-factor authentication system (or a Multi-factor authentication system) is to enhance security and make it difficult for anyone attempting to intrude into your secure logins. Having your Google authenticator in the browser (essentially in the same machine {desktop/laptop/tablet} as you usually login to) defeats that very purpose.

To put it more simply, enabling Two-factor authentication system using Google authenticator on your mobile phone would need an intruder access to both your machine and mobile to login whereas if you were to install the browser extension, the intruder can attempt to sneak in with access only to the machine.

I think I have succeeded, following @double-beep's advice of watching not only for characterData.

This is the script I have now. I also had to make a .match check before the replace, because some sites were becoming unresponsive.

option1 is an element inside the object. You need to type your text, click on the dropdown, and only then click on the relevant option.

With a frontend-only solution such as you are building at the moment, I don't think you can solve the problem very well. You will stumble upon a number of challenges that might make the endeavour impossible, for example:

• CORS rules not letting you access URLs at all.
• Mixed content rules not allowing you to access non-encrypted URLs from a TLS-encrypted page.
• Broken/self-sigend SSL certificates.

I would propose that you move the URL checks to a backend system that can freely open HTTP(s) connections without the restrictions of a browser.

This is a brand-new check and warning that was just added to the Redux DevTools code in the last few days:

https://github.com/reduxjs/redux-devtools/issues/1002#issuecomment-1011097465

If you're still using Redux 4.0.5 or earlier, it's possible that upgrading to Redux 4.1.x would fix this warning (because 4.1.0 removed the use of the symbol-observable polyfill).

That said, you should really be using our official Redux Toolkit package to set up the Redux store and write your Redux logic, rather than using the original core createStore method directly.

Although I don't have a precise and definite answer to your problem, as a Flash-ninja who's been with the technology for almost 20 years I will share some insights as will shed some light on the technical nuances, which is — alas — exceeds the comment limits by far.

1. Why does the Ruffle Flash Player play it better than the official one?

A Flash application goes in a form of an SWF file, which also might have some external extras to download (text, binary, images and also additional SWF modules). There are multiple factors that might render an application unusable.

Why downloaded SWF might fail:

• You download the main file, but not the additional files (personally I think this is the cause).
• Application is URL-locked.
• Application has a server back-end it cannot reach because it tries to access it via a relative URL.
• Application has a server back-end it cannot reach because it is published with local-with-files security which doesn't matter via HTTP but matters if you run the application locally.

Why SWF by URL might fail:

• Flash treats relative URLs in a very weird way: relatively to the current top-frame location on the current HTML page. If SWF is in different folder than the HTML it belongs to, then relative URLs could lead who knows where.
• Application has a server back-end which rejects requests because SWF without HTML page does not have a valid session.
• Application gets its settings (or checks the environment) from its HTML page which is not present in case of direct SWF link.

Well, then.

1. More importantly, how do I fix it entirely, or at least the Muscles section?

Per suggestion above, try to figure (monitor the requests from the working application somehow) all the downloadable additions to the main file and download them as well — then the downloaded version just might work.

Otherwise, there's not much you can do, because of this. As you can see, Ruffle is still far from supporting Flash and ActionScript completely, one incompatible instruction — and the whole application just fails and will continue to fail until Ruffle covers the said instruction as well.