Is there a reason why the full DevTools Protocol isn't supported? #292
postmodern
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
|
Hey, I don't mind adding any features as long as it fits ferrum's design. Please feel free! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
-
|
Would you also accept PRs that added YARD documentation tags? I noticed most of the classes and methods are undocumented. I prefer adding YARD tags to all new code that way it renders nicely on rubydoc.info. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
For sure! I just didn't do it from the beginning, and now it's just hard |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I noticed that many of the functions from the Chrome DevTools Protocol (1.2) (and 1.3) are missing from ferrum (ex:
Debugger,DOMDebugger, most of theRuntimefunctions,Browser.getVersion,Network.webSocket*). Is this intentional or would you be open to Pull Requests to add them?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions