Incorrect id calculation based on path

[NN---]

var crx = require("crx")
console.log(new crx().generateAppId("c:\\a")) // dkofdgpiohgjhcbnlhpmdmljinhhddlj

Chrome gives you different id:
ID: igchicfaapedlfgmepccnpolhajaphik
Loaded from: C:\a

[thom4parisot]

And when you use C:\a or C:\\a ?

There are stuff happening in the internals of Chrome that don't happen in generateAppId. We can notice that have a look at the GenerateIdForPath() function in Chrome source (which internally calls MaybeNormalizePath() with some Windows specifics things).

[NN---]

I’ll check it and submit PR if it solves.

[NN---]

Still no go:

console.log(new crx().generateAppId("C:\\A")) // jnolanhjgfljcjnihpkbobjkjmjjcmoi
console.log(new crx().generateAppId("C:\\a")) // ifaajnbbnkmlgkcoakicakcbihceknij

[thom4parisot]

Hm, it's weird.

I can reproduce the same extension ID with crx, the command line and when loading an unpacked Chrome extension in Chrome directly. But on Linux. There seem to be a different behaviour somewhere on Windows.

EDIT: I have asked for help on Twitter. I tried in a Windows VM but could not reproduce the value generated by Chrome. Whereas I can on Linux and macOS.

[thom4parisot]

@NN--- if you install crx via GitHub (npm i github:oncletom/crx) and try out the examples above, let me know if that works for you.

I'd be tempted to separate the methods, and have generateIdFromPath and generateId (with a Buffer) before releasing a new version of crx.

[NN---]

It works !

[IgnusG]

@oncletom Is there a reason there are no further releases on npm?

[thom4parisot]

@IgnusG it's not intentional, mostly a lack of headspace to wrap my head around what was required to release a new version. I think I felt ambiguous releasing a major version just to bump some dependencies and the minimum Node version requirement.

Time has passed and I'm fine with it now. I'll take some time this week to wrap things up and release a new version. Thanks for raising this issue 👍

[IgnusG]

@oncletom no problem at all, the github version works perfectly, was just wondering ;)
Thanks for your work

[thom4parisot]

Yeah, me too I'm wondering!

Fetching a git dependency is slower than an npm module so I'm quite happy if that's easier to track.