fix: add Chrome/ium fallback for getBrowserInfo()

[rugk]

Note that:

• Yes, these added tests fail. You can anyway only manually run them for now, but they are useful enough in this way to test if . (The old ones are broken anyway, if someone cares to fix them, feel free to do so. 🤔 )
  See https://github.com/TinyWebEx/common/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#tests on how to run these.
• Also, the tests are made to always assume true. If you know any way to exclude tests to run on certain browsers with mocha, feel free to change/suggest it to me. Otherwise, as said, let*'s just keep them as such.
  It's just easier to test this way (did so in Chrome/ium) than to keep watching for console messages or even CSS classes.
• Also I had to export all these functions, but really… they are actually useful if one wants to use them as they are.

Also I just noticed it would be useful to move that JS file to https://github.com/TinyWebEx/EnvironmentDetector (maybe name it SystemDetector or so) and include it as a dependency here, as that is much more useful.

IIRC EnvironmentDetector worked roughly, but I was never quite convinced of it and thus did not use it yet. But sure we can make use of the simple functions here if we move them there.

Fixes #18

[rugk]

Pls review @tdulcet. (I cannot assign you here as you are not a part of the official maintainers here.)

[tdulcet]

Looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this!

• Yes, these added tests fail. You can anyway only manually run them for now, but they are useful enough in this way to test if .

Well, we could always setup CI to run them automatically in Firefox and Chrome, although that would probably be for a separate PR. Having tests that purposefully fail would also make the results more difficult to interpret.

[rugk]

Well, we could always setup CI to run them automatically in Firefox and Chrome, although that would probably be for a separate PR.

Oh yes, and for these tests you'd need to dynamically load the add-on into the browser etc.
Maybe it's possible with some libs and so on, but in the past it either was not possible or I did not tackle it, so well… this is unfortunately the state we have.

I certainly agree a CI would be much more than awesome. It's just (probably) a lot of work.

[rugk]

Okay, as I don't like untracked technical depth, I've created an issue here to track this and described an approach in order to get started: TinyWebEx/common#16

Tagged it with "help wanted", so if anyone wants to help there, that would be gladly appreciated.

[tdulcet]

Oh yes, and for these tests you'd need to dynamically load the add-on into the browser etc.
Maybe it's possible with some libs and so on, but in the past it either was not possible or I did not tackle it, so well… this is unfortunately the state we have.

You can always use Mozilla's web-ext CLI tool, at least for Firefox. Although, it would probably be better to use something like Karma or Selenium/WebDriver to open the browser and run the tests.

I certainly agree a CI would be much more than awesome. It's just (probably) a lot of work.

I have never done extension testing, but generally cross browser testing is not too difficult (see lathonez/clicker#291 for example). Writing the tests is the hard part… 😉

[rugk]

Sure… but let's discuss that in the other issue, where it's intended to be… 😉