Chrome problem with IDBFS access from local HTML/JavaScript

[mla]

Before complaining to Google (who on past experience will try to blame my distro!)...

I have an HTML page with lots of embedded JavaScript, which uses local browser storage (HTML5 IDBFS). If viewed with Chrome browser, the file works *only* if accessed via an HTTP web server (http:// or https://). If accessed directly as a local file (file://...), it generates an error: "IDBFS error: UnknownError: The user denied permission to access the database.". Firefox is happy to run the same file either as http(s):// or as file://.

Does this ring any bells with anybody?

[doktor5000]

Is this somehow related to your issue? Then check your cookie settings in chrome: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/is ... l?id=92696

[mla]

Dear Doctor, you are amazing! Unchecking "Block third-party cookies and site data" in Chrome's content setting does indeed cure my problem. It also leaves me confused as to why the file's IDBFS access calls fall under third-party cookies and data under the file:// protocol, but not under the http(s):// one? It would be nice to know, because rather than having to explain to my users that they need to uncheck that option if using Chrome, it would be nice to work around it somehow.

[doktor5000]

Dear Doctor, you are amazing!

Well, usually it's just firing up a search, and just entering your complete error message guess what came up as the first result ...

For the chrome-specific stuff, better ask in the google product forums: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/chrome

[mla]

I did type (cur & pasted!)that message into Google and got zilch hits. Google obviously likes you better than me. Will pursue with google. Thanks!

[doktor5000]

You may want to omit the quotation marks around that as otherwise google will do a literal search for the whole string.

See https://www.google.de/search?q=IDBFS+er ... e&ie=UTF-8

[mla]

Actually, not finding any hits on the quoted string, Google did give me a list of hits for that error without quotes, but scanning through them I could see nothing obviously relevant. That would seem to be the difference between us. Even after I looked at that URL following your prod, it did not seem directly relevant: no third party data involved and a different error message. I was really surprised when unchecking that option did the trick. (Not sure why it was checked -- is that the default on Mageia? A Mint-using friend tells me it unchecked by default for him.)

Anyway, digging through Chromium bugs give one from back in 2008 (!) to do with not storing cookies for file:// and marked "won't fix". I guess the same mechanism got used for HTML5 persistent data and nobody realised that there might be a problem.

[doktor5000]

(Not sure why it was checked -- is that the default on Mageia? A Mint-using friend tells me it unchecked by default for him.)

Mageia doesn't set any defaults as Chrome is not offered from Mageia.