Develop Reference

Difference between Localhost and opening html file

What is the fundamental difference running a file using a server in localhost, and opening a file such as file:///Users/$user_name/$your_directory/index.html, assuming no backend is used, and it is only frontend and contains html/css/js
How does this also affect interactions with other server ie. ajax requests?
I am sorry if this is too broad, but I haven't found a solid answer to these underlying questions.

Fundamentally, assuming at some point you're going to host the result on an actual web server, the former matches the target environment while the latter doesn't. Browsers treat local files and files served from web servers (even localhost web servers) differently, although very similarly. One aspect of this is the encoding: When you retrieve a file from a web server, the process of determine what encoding the data is in is different from opening a local file.
How does this also affect interactions with other server ie. ajax requests?
This is one of the primary ways in which they're handled differently, and it even varies from browser to browser. A page loaded from a file:// URL has origin null from a Same Origin Policy standpoint. Some browsers (like Chrome) disallow Cross-Origin Resource Sharing entirely for origin null, even when the server you're trying to talk to has a wide-open CORS policy (*). Others (like Firefox) allow origin null to match the wildcard.
In general, for best results, ensure that your development environment matches your deployment environment in the important ways. That means doing your development using a web server process rather than local files. Most IDEs will happily provide that process for you; if not, Apache or Nginx aren't hard to install.

answer is simple,
if u don't have made active backend yet for "index.html" then it would not effect.e.g.-"localhost" and "index.html" will be same this time.
but when u start working with the backend,then most of the backend processes need an active server (need localhost).
e.g.-
1.
fetch('local.json')... //fetch json or any file would not work for local files.
2.
u may not ineract with mysql/django etc. databases.
means it cause errors in signup/login , store any image/video/docs at database etc.
so better is work in localhost, it's most easy way is :-
VScode(IDE) >> extenctions >> live server (just need to click a button to make
localhost and click again to stop localhost)
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ritwickdey.LiveServer

It won't make any difference, I think.
But there is an exception when using Chrome! Sometimes I have seen if a html file is added with some CDN link, then it doesn't loaded into html specifically in Chrome but if you try the same file in Firefox or Internet Explorer, it works.
I have faced this problem and hence I always put it under local IIS default website.

How to run JavaScript from local files in Google Chrome?

I have encountered this problem of JavaScript not running from local files when testing a website.
I am in great despair and need your help.
I have linked the JS correctly and everything, but it's just not working.
All settings are correctly enabled in Chrome.
Thanks!

Any problem caused by web browsers treating local files different to network files is best solved by installing a web server (there are many free options) on your development machine (optionally inside a VM) and testing through that.
This deals with many different issues include ones related to cross-origin security and relative URIs.

How can a Chrome extension save many files to a user-specified directory?

I'm working on a Chrome extension to be used as an internal tool. Its required behavior is:
As a page action, enable an address bar icon when looking at certain intranet pages.
when the user clicks the icon, identify all files of a certain media type (say, .jpg) on the page, and
silently save them all to a directory on the user's local drive.
This question has been asked before, but the answer then was "use NPAPI", and NPAPI is now derelict.
So, what is the currently available way to achieve this? The ones I've looked at are:
The chrome.FileSystem API --- but this does not save files in any user-accessible location. Instead the stored files are hidden behind obfuscated names in an undocumented directory. User requires that the files be stored under their original names in an accessible directory.
The HTML5 download attribute, by creating a data: URL and programmatically clicking it. This pops up a "save as..." dialog for each file, which is unacceptable when there are a hundred assets on a single page. User requires that the files be downloaded without further interaction beyond the single icon click.
The Chrome Download API, but that is only available in the beta and dev channels. User requires this extension work with mainstream Chrome.
Use the Native Messaging API by creating a small .exe that simply saves a file to disk, and then pass the .jpg as a blob to it. This seems very cumbersome and I am not even sure how to reliably pass large blobs to EXEs like that.
Is there another approach I can try?

You've done quite a lot of research. Indeed, regular web pages cannot write to the user's filesystem without any plugins or extensions. Also, the HTML5 Filesystem API only provides access to a virtual filesystem, as you've observed.
However, you are confusing the chrome.fileSystem API with the HTML5 FileSystem API. Unlike the HTML FileSystem API, Chrome's fileSystem (app) API can directly write to the user's filesystem (e.g. ~/Documents or %USERPROFILE%\Documents), specified by the user.
This API is only available to Chrome apps, not extensions. This is not a problem, especially since you're developing an internal tool, because you can install the app and extension, and use message passing to communicate between the extension (page action) and app (file system access) (example).
About chrome.downloads: Since your extension is internal, you can probably force users to get on the beta/dev channel in order to use this API. The only limitation of this API is that the files will be saved in (a subdirectory of) the user-defined Downloads folder.
EDIT: The chrome.downloads API is now avaiable in all channels, including the stable branch (since Chrome 31).

I am afraid that you have done your homework, meaning you looked at all possible alternatives.
The best way to achieve exactly what you want, would be (as you mentioned) using a supporting native app and communicating through Native Messaging. BTW, since bandwidth is rarely a problem on intranets, you might find it simpler to pass the resources (e.g. images) URLs and have the app download and save them.
(Yes, it will be more cumbersome than simply developing an extension, but one's got to do what they've got to do, right ?)
On the other hand, if you are willing to sacrifice a little bit of user's experience over simplicity of development, I suggest combining the HTML5 goodies (that allow you to create and download a file locally) with a JS zipping library (e.g. JSZip), so the user only has to download a single zip file (and is only prompted once). BTW, if the user wishes, he/she can choose to always download the files without prompting (but you knew that already).

Use the Native Messaging App idea.
The native app is cumbersome and a pain to write because documentation is poor, and unless you get the JSON formatting exactly correct on both ends you will not see anything in a console because stdin and stdout are taken over.
But, you will be happier when it is done because you can use standard tools (e.g., Windows Explorer, a hex editor, TeamViewer...) to view, move, and delete files, and otherwise see what is going on. Chrome's sand-boxed file system works, but seems to now be a dead-end (no other browsers have picked it up). No one is likely to develop third-party tools for it. Of course you probably don't need tools once everything is working, but until then, debugging is a nightmare because you need to write code (and quite a lot of code) just to track what files are in what directories, file versions, remaining disk space...

Another solution for internal (or may be non-internal) usage is to connect to a websocket server, local or remote.
You can put it in both background.js or content.js (use wss:// for https://)
var ws = new WebSocket('ws://echo.websocket.org');
// var ws = new WebSocket('ws://127.0.0.1:9000');
ws.onmessage = function(res) {
console.log('received data:', res.data);
};
ws.onopen = function() {
ws.send('hello');
};

List a local directory with chrome extension

I'm trying to create a chrome extension which scans a local directory for new files ...
However, if I add the file://* permission to the manifest I can access the internal file browser of chrome with
xmlhttp.open("GET","file://C:/Users/username/Desktop/",false);
xmlhttp.send();
console.log(xmlhttp.response);
From the response I could extract the file URLs and use them in my extension.
My question is now: Are there other approaches? The above way seems more like a workaround and easily breaks if chrome's file browser is changed ...

Any time I've had to do something on the local machine from a Chrome extension, I've always created a small program that accepts connections via HTTP, and does the work as a normal program, taking commands with JSON over POST. This gives you great flexibility, as it essentially allows you to write a Chrome extension that can do anything a desktop program can do.
However, there are great downsides to this, and you should only do it if absolutely necessary. For instance:
You can't do this for all operating systems, unless you're going to write an agent for every OS.
The extension cannot be installed from Google's extension hosting.
You must write your own installation program that registers the extension.
There are very real security considerations to worry about with this. You will be opening up a web service that executes commands. Be very sure that you are not exposing the user. In all reality, if you are making a file browser, you probably are exposing the user. It will be up to you to fix this security hole, as if you were creating any other web service.

Least complicated way to get full file paths with Javascript

This has been asked a lot of times already: I need to get the full file path via a web-page. The use case is an application running on the same machine as the browser (i.e. the application starts a local HTTP server and fires up the browser.) File-paths are of course valid and the same for both client/server now. The use case it that the user selects a file and then the server process does some computation on it, and the input files are typically large (read: several GiB in size.)
The easiest thing would be to directly access the path using , but for security reasons, this is disabled. I'm looking now for the least intrusive workaround to this problem. The target browser in question is Chrome. I'm fine if the user has to click "accept" once on some security warning, as long as I can ensure that it won't appear again.
Do I have to write an extension, NSPlugin, can I use some special header magic to mark my page as "local", is there some security setting I can set? The less the client has to do the better, and I would prefer some "click here to allow access ..." solution above everything else. Can I directly install an extension from the server process that would do this (after the user clicks accept?)
Is it possible to do this with a Java applet/Flash? That would be the easiest solution, and clients are guaranteed to have Flash installed (as it is bundled in Chrome...)

You can create Java applet for tasks like this and self-sign it. User will have to allow it to run, but then you will be able to access applet's function that will return file path string via Javascript.

Clearly file io on the client's system is forbidden from JavaScript. If this wasn't the case it would be absolutely trivial to hack every web browser that visits your website.
Battlefiled 3 is controlled though the browser. To do this EA wrote a browser extension for the top three browsers. But that's resource intensive. If you just care about chrome you can use an addon, and for that i suggest using the NPAPI.
And as MOleYArd said, Java is a good solution and probably more common than an extension or addon.