-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proposal: add cookies.removeAll() method #690
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 8 commits
e34be81
e8dae2e
d42833a
dac145f
5682b4c
bf51fe9
1c7ffcf
d7d953b
76f57be
8f17da2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ | ||
**Summary** | ||
|
||
Adds a new API `cookies.removeAll()` to allow for the removal of multiple cookies with a single call. | ||
|
||
**Document Metadata** | ||
|
||
**Author:** [aselya](https://github.com/aselya) | ||
|
||
**Sponsoring Browser:** Chrome | ||
|
||
**Contributors:** | ||
|
||
**Created:** 2024-09-18 | ||
|
||
**Related Issues:** | ||
- [PrivacyCG/CHIPS issue 6 - How do Partitioned cookies interact with browser extensions?](https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/6) | ||
- [browser.cookies.remove removes only one cookie, not all](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1387957) | ||
- [chrome.cookies.remove does not account for paths and host-only cookies](https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40572551) | ||
|
||
## Motivation | ||
|
||
The introduction of additional cookie attributes since the creation of the `cookies.remove()` api, has resulted in the required parameters (`url` and `name`) to no longer be unique to a single [cookie](https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40572551). Because of this, handling cookies with `cookies.remove()` requires additional steps which can be simplified by the inclusion of this new API. | ||
|
||
### Objective | ||
|
||
This new API addresses two workflows which require developers to take additional steps to ensure that cookies are deleted correctly because the required parameters for `cookies.remove()` can match multiple cookies but will only delete one cookie: | ||
##### Removal of cookies with the same url and name combination but different partitionKey, path or host-only values: | ||
To remove all the cookies with the same `url` and `name` a developer must first call `cookies.getAll()` to get all of the cookies associated with the values. Then use the results of that call to make individual calls to `cookies.remove()` to delete each cookie. | ||
|
||
##### Removal of cookies associated with a topLevelSite: | ||
To remove all the cookies associated with a `topLevelSite`, a developer must first call `cookies.getAll({})` to retrieve all partitioned and unpartitioned cookies. Then filter the results to identify cookies that have a value for `topLevelSite` of their `partitionKey` match the desired `topLevelSite`. Finally the developer will need to make individual calls to `cookies.remove()` to delete each cookie. | ||
|
||
#### Use Cases | ||
|
||
##### Cookie Manager: | ||
|
||
Let's say a cookie manager extension (with host permissions) is used by users to remove their cookies. Using `cookies.removeAll()` would ensure that the cookie manager extension is removing all the cookies associated with a `topLevelSite` correctly. Instead of relying on the developer of the extension to make a call to `cookies.getAll()` followed by call(s) to `cookies.remove()`. Reducing complexity for the developers while improving performance of the extension. | ||
|
||
### Known Consumers | ||
|
||
All extensions that access and/or modify cookies with awareness of partitioned cookies, through the use of the `partitionKey` property in the `cookies` extension API. | ||
|
||
## Specification | ||
|
||
|
||
### Schema | ||
|
||
##### Syntax | ||
|
||
``` | ||
let removed = await browser.cookies.removeAll( | ||
details // object | ||
) | ||
``` | ||
##### Parameters | ||
An `object` containing information to identify the cookie(s) to remove. It contains the following properties, based on the properties recognized by `cookies.remove`: | ||
|
||
>[`name`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/cookies/remove#name) optional: | ||
> | ||
>A `string` representing the name of the cookie to remove. | ||
> | ||
>[`partitionKey`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/cookies/remove#partitionkey) optional: | ||
> | ||
>An object representing the storage partition containing the cookie. | ||
> | ||
>[`topLevelSite`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/cookies/remove#toplevelsite) optional: | ||
> | ||
>A `string` representing the first-party URL of the top-level site storage partition containing the cookie. | ||
> | ||
>[`storeId`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/cookies/remove#storeid) optional: | ||
> | ||
>A `string` representing the ID of the cookie store to find the cookie in. If unspecified, the cookie is looked for by default in the current execution context's cookie store. | ||
> | ||
>[`url`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/cookies/remove#url) optional: | ||
> | ||
>A `string` representing the URL associated with the cookie. | ||
|
||
##### Return | ||
|
||
> `Promise<Cookie[]>`: | ||
> | ||
> All the cookies that were removed. If list is empty then no cookies were removed. | ||
|
||
|
||
### Behavior | ||
|
||
The API will remove all cookies that match the `details` object parameter with the exception of the cases outlined in the implementation details. | ||
If the extension does not have [host permissions](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/permissions#host_permissions) for this URL, the API call will fail. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we allow calling this API without a |
||
|
||
### New Permissions | ||
No new permissions are required. | ||
|
||
### Manifest File Changes | ||
No new manifest fields are required. | ||
|
||
## Security and Privacy | ||
Incorrect usage can lead to the removal of cookies that are not intended. | ||
|
||
### Exposed Sensitive Data | ||
None | ||
|
||
### Abuse Mitigations | ||
To remove a cookie, the extension must have host permissions for the `url` associated with the cookie. | ||
|
||
|
||
## Alternatives | ||
None | ||
|
||
### Existing Workarounds | ||
|
||
The behavior introduced by this API can be replicated by using a combination of `cookies.getAll()` and `cookies.remove()`. | ||
|
||
### Open Web API | ||
|
||
The cookies API is specific to extensions | ||
|
||
## Implementation Notes | ||
|
||
Host permissions are required for this API. | ||
#### Special cases: | ||
```cookies.removeAll({})``` | ||
|
||
>An empty details object will result in an error. | ||
|
||
``` | ||
cookies.removeAll({ | ||
partitionKey:{}}) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
>An empty `partitionKey` object as the only value in the details object, will result in all partitioned cookies being removed. | ||
aselya marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
``` | ||
cookies.removeAll({ | ||
name: “example”, | ||
url: “https://example.com”, | ||
partitionKey:{} | ||
}) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
>An empty `partitionKey` object with other values populated, will result in both unpartitioned and partitioned cookies that also match the other values provided will be removed. | ||
|
||
``` | ||
cookies.removeAll({ | ||
topLevelSite: “https://example.com” | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why is topLevelSite a separate key? I would expect it to be a member of partitionKey. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Having This could be replaced by having the developer pass in a partitionKey that contains the |
||
}) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
>If `topLevelSite` is the only argument, it will result in all cookies that have that value as the `topLevelSite` in their `partitionKey` being removed. | ||
|
||
``` | ||
cookies.removeAll({ | ||
topLevelSite: “https://example.com”, | ||
partitionKey:{topLevelSite: “https://foo.com”} | ||
}) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
>If the `topLevelSite` differs from the `topLevelSite`, if present, in the `partitionKey` an error will be returned. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Return value" is not documented in this proposal. What are you going to return?
The
remove
method returns the deleted cookie, and that could be reasonable to do the same incookies.removeAll
. A concrete use case is to allow for extensions to undo the removal. Currently extensions have to callcookies.get
orcookies.getAll
and keep track of the cookie. This tracking requires extensions to accurately predict which cookie would be removed for a givencookies.removeAll
call, but it is not easy to determine which cookies would be removed.Another option is to return nothing (undefined) and encourage extension developers to call
getAll
with the given parameters, under the assumption that thecookies.getAll
call would return exactly the same set of cookies as matched bycookies.removeAll
. In theory this is prone to TOCTOU issues, but I think that this is not that big of a deal in practice.Yet another option is to add an option to the
cookies.removeCookies
call to flag whether deleted cookies should be returned.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think returning a list of cookies that were removed makes sense here. In addition to addressing the use case you mentioned it also matches the behavior of
cookies.getAll()
.