Passing in URL to getAll when called from Service Worker

[RupinMittal]

The spec (https://wicg.github.io/cookie-store/#CookieStore-getAll) has a step for getAll() that says if a URL is passed in,

"If this's relevant global object is a Window object and parsed does not equal url, then return a promise rejected with a TypeError."

It appears that Chrome does this check for Service worker contexts as well. Which is the right behavior to follow?

CC @annevk

[annevk]

It's not entirely clear to me that a service worker's environment settings object's creation URL is well-defined. But I'm guessing we're talking about the URL of the script the service worker is derived from? E.g., https://whatwg.org/service-worker.js?

cc @bakulf

[RupinMittal]

Yes, the example I had in mind/found on an internal test site has a URL like: https://whatwg.org/service-worker.js. This will cause the getAll() to fail on Chrome.

[aamuley]

Could we specify that for Service Workers we should compare the scope ? By default this is the directory that the service worker script is located in.

[annevk]

I'm not sure that building on scope is a good idea. There were plans to make that more object-like. What does Chrome do today? cc @asutherland

[aamuley]

Hmm, I wasnt aware of plans to change scope. I just felt scope would encapsulate what a service worker could already view/intercept since it might handle cases like using the Service-Worker-Allowed header where the scope is broader than the script URL.

That being said, I'm not very familiar with Service Workers and it seems like the Chromium implementation checks against the scriptURL. I am happy to specify whichever seems best.

[annevk]

I think that makes the most sense.

[asutherland]

w3c/ServiceWorker#1512 is the ServiceWorker discussion on making it possible to change the scope.

It looks like the ServiceWorkers spec explicitly sets the creation URL to the serviceWorker's script URL when setting up the SW Global Scope, so the spec may already be in agreement with the consensus here. Would this be a situation where it would be friendly to spec-readers to add non-normative text that clarifies that for ServiceWorkers this is the script URL, since it's not directly accessible from the HTML spec which is linked to?