>[!note] What is this about??? >I've included my *audio note*(cleaned up) of my overview on the app, as well as a *Mentor Footnote* that addresses my input. I'm far from perfect, and I'm looking for feedback. >The *Mentor Footnote* serves as various feedbacks I've gathered from a Discord server as well as LLM. >[!note]- LLM Instruction: >Below should be my original documentation, **with only punctuation and minor grammatical corrections** (no rewording), followed by **Affirmations, Corrections, and Additional Explanations** after each note. The **audio links** and **code blocks** are included exactly as in my notes. Feel free to copy and paste this into the documentation. --- # Self Documentation of the Codebase --- ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T18-54-05-447Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _Hi, welcome to my code-based documentation. So, right now, I'm planning on clearly understanding every line of the code and the architecture. I don't think my strength lies in rote memorization; it's always been that way. However, I also don't want to fool myself into believing that I have learned something when I haven't. So, this is a way for me to learn._ **Affirmations** - You articulate your learning approach clearly, which sets a good foundation. - You acknowledge the pitfalls of rote memorization, showing self-awareness about your learning style. **Corrections** - None of substance. The meaning is clear, and your approach is sound. **Additional Explanations** - Documenting code in your own words is a strong strategy for deeper comprehension. - By explicitly stating your intent, you help yourself stay focused on actual understanding rather than superficial knowledge. --- ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T18-55-56-564Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _So, right off the bat, we have the layouts, and the first thing I think I should look at in a project is the package.json, which tells you at the very least what you're going to be using in terms of dependencies to build your project. And it looks like from here—keep in mind that the way I am documenting this is the same way that I would look at a codebase and make comments on it. Even though I've written this program, it's a good way to make an overview by approaching it in this manner._ **Affirmations** - You highlight package.json first, which is indeed a great starting point for understanding a project’s dependencies and scripts. - You explain that this documentation style mirrors how you’d normally assess code, which is a solid approach. **Corrections** - None needed; you’ve identified the role of package.json correctly. **Additional Explanations** - package.json often reveals the project’s build pipeline, dev dependencies, and overall structure. - Even if you wrote the program, this systematic re-exploration can clarify or jog your memory on key design decisions. --- ```json { "name": "tab-context-grouper", "version": "1.0.0", "description": "A production-grade Chrome extension with Webpack, TypeScript, and ADHD-friendly tab grouping.", "private": true, "scripts": { "build": "webpack --mode production", "start": "webpack --mode development --watch" }, "devDependencies": { "@types/chrome": "^0.0.195", "copy-webpack-plugin": "^11.0.0", "ts-loader": "^9.4.3", "typescript": "^4.9.0", "webpack": "^5.75.0", "webpack-cli": "^4.10.0" } } ``` **Affirmations** - You accurately note that this file outlines dependencies and scripts (like `build` and `start`). **Corrections** - No corrections needed; your understanding of package.json is solid. **Additional Explanations** - In a Chrome extension project, most dependencies end up in `devDependencies` because the final extension just uses the bundled output. - The scripts for Webpack indicate both a production build and a development/watch mode. --- ```json { "compilerOptions": { "target": "ES2017", "lib": [ "ES2017", "DOM" ], "module": "ESNext", "strict": true, "esModuleInterop": true, "skipLibCheck": true, "forceConsistentCasingInFileNames": true }, "include": [ "src/**/*" ] } ``` **Affirmations** - You recognize that tsconfig.json controls the compilation target and libraries for TypeScript, which is correct. **Corrections** - None; everything here is accurate. **Additional Explanations** - `"target": "ES2017"` influences which language features TypeScript will compile down to or expect to exist. - `"lib": ["DOM"]` ensures TypeScript knows about browser-specific APIs. --- ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-00-16-024Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _So, you can clearly see that everything in here seems like it's self-explanatory. It uses Webpack, so the scripts are just saying in the command line interface what happens when you type npm build or npm start. That's an alias for running these types of scripts, which in this case is Webpack. The dependencies are just technicalities that pretty much serve as boilerplate at this point. If we want to abstract that away—and I say it's boilerplate because you don't need to really understand why I specifically picked 5.75.0 as the version. I don't even look into the real reason unless I run into a problem where I need to switch versions, similar to how in Python I might need to downgrade a couple libraries. But for the most part, there's not going to be any issues with the developer dependencies. It's self-explanatory: you have the types for Chrome, TypeScript loader, and so on. It just tells you that the whole build process is using TypeScript, which doesn't really matter in the production code since it gets converted to JavaScript, but for developers, it's a clean way of developing web apps. The nightmares associated with JavaScript are what TypeScript tries to fix—like ensuring that parameters are sanitized—so you don't compile if there's an issue. I don't want to get too much into the details here because that would be getting into the weeds, and I'm trying to force an abstraction to what's relevant._ **Affirmations** - You highlight that these configurations (like Webpack and TypeScript versions) are often boilerplate unless you need to troubleshoot. - You accurately describe TypeScript’s main benefit: catching errors at compile time. **Corrections** - No major corrections. You’ve captured the essence of why these dependencies exist. **Additional Explanations** - Keeping track of library versions can matter when advanced features or breaking changes occur. Otherwise, you’re right—they’re mostly “set and forget.” - TypeScript is indeed about preventing runtime issues by shifting checks to compile time. --- ## webpack.config.js ```js const path = require("path"); const CopyPlugin = require("copy-webpack-plugin"); module.exports = { mode: "production", devtool: "source-map", entry: { background: path.resolve(__dirname, "src/background/index.ts"), content: path.resolve(__dirname, "src/content/index.ts"), popup: path.resolve(__dirname, "src/popup/popup.ts"), options: path.resolve(__dirname, "src/options/options.ts") }, output: { path: path.resolve(__dirname, "dist"), filename: "[name].js" // [name] = background, content, popup, options }, resolve: { extensions: [".ts", ".js"] }, module: { rules: [ { test: /\.ts$/, loader: "ts-loader", exclude: /node_modules/ } ] }, plugins: [ // Copy static files like HTML and icons to dist new CopyPlugin({ patterns: [ { from: "src/popup/popup.html", to: "popup.html" }, { from: "src/options/options.html", to: "options.html" }, { from: "manifest.json", to: "manifest.json" }, { from: "icons", to: "icons" } ] }) ] }; ``` ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-09-05-536Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _So, what we've seen so far is the package.json tells you that it even needs to use Webpack, and therefore it orchestrates looking into the Webpack config. Then the Webpack config is the real orchestrator on how to bundle each script for production. The TypeScript config and Webpack config are needed because, in package.json, you've called that you needed to use TypeScript and the bundler Webpack. I wanted to include that for completeness. I'm abstracting: I don't think I'm omitting important information. There are lots of reasons why you could learn every technicality, but it's also really good to treat this as boilerplate at this point while you abstract what it does, which is basically turning the developer environment into production and also giving the technicalities of how the TypeScript structure is used. For example, in the TypeScript JSON, it uses ES2017 DOM library; I honestly don't know what that means, and I think I should learn that, but I also think it's okay to not dive in too deep if it's not immediately relevant. I'm just acknowledging that it's part of focusing on different layers of abstraction._ **Affirmations** - You note how package.json, Webpack config, and tsconfig.json interrelate. This is a valuable systems-level insight. - You also recognize the concept of layers of abstraction, and how focusing on immediate needs is often more practical. **Corrections** - None necessary; your approach to differentiating “must-know now” vs. “nice to know eventually” is sensible. **Additional Explanations** - Understanding ES2017/DOM specifics can be left for a time when a feature or environment compatibility demands it. - Your reading of “orchestrator” is exactly how Webpack and these configs coordinate the build process. --- ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-13-23-073Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _Now that I've satisfied the part of my brain that needs every layer of abstraction, I can move on. So, from this code, you can see that the entry point is basically the orchestrator, telling the script where to enter, just like how in a C++ program there's a main.cpp. Here I have four entry points for separation of concerns, which is common in modern development standards for security and clarity. For instance, you wouldn't want a background script, which handles high-level permissions, to be intertwined with content logic, which has lower permissions. That separation is self-explanatory. If you don't understand why you shouldn't bundle everything, that's another discussion. Anyway, there's nothing of particular interest to note more deeply here._ **Affirmations** - You highlight separation of concerns (background vs. content vs. popup vs. options). That’s a central concept in extension architecture. - You note the similarity to a main entry point in other languages, which is a good analogy. **Corrections** - None. You’ve summarized the motivation behind multiple entry points well. **Additional Explanations** - In Chrome extensions, the background script often has more powerful APIs, while the content script runs in the context of web pages. This separation helps with security and maintainability. - You’re correct that bundling all code together is often discouraged because different scripts have different roles and permissions. --- ```json { "name": "Tab Context Grouper (Webpack)", "version": "1.0.0", "description": "Production-grade Chrome extension, with bundling for ADHD-friendly tab grouping.", "manifest_version": 3, "action": { "default_popup": "popup.html", "default_icon": { "16": "icons/icon16.png", "48": "icons/icon48.png", "128": "icons/icon128.png" } }, "background": { "service_worker": "background.js" }, "permissions": [ "tabs", "tabGroups", "storage" ], "host_permissions": ["<all_urls>"], "content_scripts": [ { "matches": ["<all_urls>"], "js": ["content.js"] } ], "options_ui": { "page": "options.html", "open_in_tab": true }, "icons": { "16": "icons/icon16.png", "48": "icons/icon48.png", "128": "icons/icon128.png" } } ``` ```json { from: "manifest.json", to: "manifest.json" }, ``` ```json "host_permissions": ["<all_urls>"], "content_scripts": [ { "matches": ["<all_urls>"], "js": ["content.js"] } ], ``` ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-19-53-118Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _So, manifest.json is very important to understand. The copy plugin in Webpack literally takes the manifest from development to production unchanged. This means that in the developer environment, what you have is exactly how it appears in production. It's important because the script references must match the Webpack output. For instance, the content script references content.js, which Webpack actually outputs, so there's no conflict. Also, "matches": ["<all_urls>"] means the content.js will be injected into every page you open._ **Affirmations** - You correctly grasp the role of the manifest and how the Copy Plugin ensures consistency between dev and production. - You understand that “matches”: ["<all_urls>"] indicates the content script runs on all pages. **Corrections** - No corrections needed; your note is accurate. **Additional Explanations** - In Manifest V3, the background script is now a service worker. That’s reflected in `"service_worker": "background.js"`. - The `host_permissions` key also ensures the extension is granted access to pages at `<all_urls>`. --- ```ts // src/types/index.d.ts export interface TabContextMap { [tabId: number]: string; } ``` ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-27-00-144Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _So, we have all the peripheral support systems that deal with the build process. Now let's look at the actual source structure. For instance, here's a simple type definition for a TabContextMap, which is basically a key-value pair of tabId to some string context. I might later expand how I'm centralizing types, but for now, this is just an example of a shared interface._ **Affirmations** - You show awareness that `index.d.ts` is for shared type definitions. This is a common TypeScript pattern. - You note that you might reorganize it in the future, which shows forward thinking. **Corrections** - None needed; your summary of the interface’s role is correct. **Additional Explanations** - Keeping a central “types” folder or file is standard in many TypeScript projects to avoid duplicating interfaces across modules. - If you want domain-specific interfaces, you can still keep them close to the code that uses them. There’s no single “right” way. --- ```ts // src/api/tabsApi.ts import { pickColorForContext } from "../lib/pickColor"; export async function groupTabByContext(tabId: number, context: string): Promise<void> { const groups = await chrome.tabGroups.query({}); let existingGroup = groups.find((grp) => grp.title === context); if (!existingGroup) { // Create new group if none match const newGroupId = await chrome.tabs.group({ tabIds: [tabId] }); existingGroup = await chrome.tabGroups.update(newGroupId, { title: context, color: pickColorForContext(context), }); } else { // Add to existing group await chrome.tabs.group({ groupId: existingGroup.id, tabIds: [tabId] }); } } export function onTabRemoved(callback: (tabId: number) => void): void { chrome.tabs.onRemoved.addListener(callback); } ``` ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-33-05-261Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _We can start at tabsApi. It seems to be a modular component that wraps calls to the Chrome tab and tabGroups APIs. It defines an async function called groupTabByContext, which returns a Promise, and it performs actions on tabs. If there's no existing group matching the context, it creates a new group; otherwise, it adds the tab to an existing one. It sets the title and color of that group, too, using pickColorForContext. If someone asked me how it does what it does internally, I'd only be able to say it calls the Chrome APIs. I don't know the deeper logic of how Chrome organizes tabs beyond that, but from this code, it's grouping them based on context._ **Affirmations** - You identify the essential behavior: querying or creating a group by context, then assigning a color. - You acknowledge that Chrome’s API does the “heavy lifting,” which is accurate. **Corrections** - None necessary; your interpretation of the function’s flow is correct. **Additional Explanations** - `chrome.tabs.group` and `chrome.tabGroups.update` are indeed the official Chrome extension methods. - The second function, onTabRemoved, simply registers a callback for when a tab is removed—useful for housekeeping or group cleanup. --- ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-19-53-118Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _It's important to note how the script references match the Webpack output. If the bundler didn't produce content.js, then the manifest reference to content.js would break. So, I'm just making sure we keep in mind that the final output from Webpack must match what's in the manifest. That's basically what's happening with "content_scripts"..._ **Affirmations** - You reiterate the necessity of matching the final output file names with the manifest references. - You’re correctly keeping track of the importance of consistency in a Chrome extension’s build system. **Corrections** - None; your remark is accurate. **Additional Explanations** - If you ever rename your entry files or change the output naming convention in Webpack, you must update the manifest accordingly. - This is a common stumbling block for newcomers to extension development. --- ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-27-00-144Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _So, after covering these periphery supports (like build process), I'm now actually diving into the source. This index.d.ts is pretty straightforward, just an interface for a TabContextMap that might be expanded later. I'm just highlighting that there's some organization going on._ **Affirmations** - You emphasize that this is “straightforward,” which is true, as it’s just an index signature for storing contexts by tab ID. - You see it as part of your ongoing organization plan—makes sense. **Corrections** - None; the note is correct. **Additional Explanations** - If your extension grows, you may add more advanced types here or create subfolders for different domain areas (e.g., “api types,” “popup types,” etc.). --- ### ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-15T19-33-05-261Z.webm]] **Audio Note (User Commentary)** _I have some doubts about my understanding of tabsApi. Without reading documentation, all I can tell you is it groups tabs by some context string. I wouldn't be able to say exactly how it interacts with Chrome's internals. I'd only say the expected behavior is that it either creates a new group or reuses one. I guess that might be normal if you haven't looked at the docs or had prior memory of the Chrome APIs._ **Affirmations** - You acknowledge the limitation of not knowing Chrome’s internal logic, which is completely normal if you haven’t read the external docs. - You still correctly describe the function’s essential behavior—grouping by context. **Corrections** - No corrections here. You’re being realistic about what you can glean from code alone. **Additional Explanations** - In practice, a developer would confirm the details by testing the extension or checking official docs. - Knowing the “what” (it groups tabs by context) is usually enough to use or refactor the code unless you need deeper insights into how Chrome manages tab groups behind the scenes. >[!tip]- Extended clarification on what an industry developer realistically should know given zero contextual memory: >![[Clarification on What a Developer Should Know Reading Codebase]] --- ```typescript // src/api/storageApi.ts export interface StorageData { extensionEnabled?: boolean; autoGroupEnabled?: boolean; } /** * Get an object containing the requested keys. */ export function getStorage<T extends keyof StorageData>( keys: T[] ): Promise<Pick<StorageData, T>> { return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { chrome.storage.local.get(keys, (result) => { if (chrome.runtime.lastError) { return reject(chrome.runtime.lastError); } resolve(result as Pick<StorageData, T>); }); }); } /** * Set or update the given keys in storage. */ export function setStorage(data: Partial<StorageData>): Promise<void> { return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { chrome.storage.local.set(data, () => { if (chrome.runtime.lastError) { return reject(chrome.runtime.lastError); } resolve(); }); }); } ``` Okay, so with the next one. I'm going to be looking at storage API. So what I know I'm being honest what I only know right now from this code with not without any prior contextual knowledge is that the export interface storage data is the storage at API defines an interface called storage data. And it seems to be trying to, it's trying to maintain persistence with the API. And I am not sure how the API works. All I know is reading the storage data. It's the data that is going to be transferred through the API with the status of whether the toggle extension enabled or auto group enabled is on. And that's required because when you turn it on or off, you want that setting that the user wanted to be persisting. Now, as far as everything outside of the interface storage data. I'm not sure if it's wise to broad brush all that away and simply say, it's simply how it communicates with the Chrome API. And the only thing that changes is how we have to find the storage data in which it is our discretion to put extension enabled or auto group enabled. It seems very, very simple. And because it's so simple, I might be overthinking it. I think the meat of the matter is the interface export. ![[whisper/audio/2025-03-16T00-33-27-194Z.webm]] I don't want to broad brush it away just because I don't understand. I feel like this is an important barrier I need to get over. And what's confusing me is I guess I have a higher level assumption that I have like rigidly assumed based on the name of this file called storage API TypeScript. So I'm getting confused because my mind rigidly tries to look for higher level workings of how this serves as the API. Despite the fact that all I see right now is an interface export and two function exports. And what these function exports, what they do is it's a very simple function that we call getStorage and setStorage. It's where we communicate storage data. And what I'm failing to understand is maybe I do not fundamentally know what an API is. I thought an API is a authenticated handshake that another developer gives us. In this case, another developer would be Chrome. And it gives us a authenticated way to give them a handshake in order to proceed with an action that is safely guarded by the browser, by the developer, which is Chrome. And I am failing to see how this file called storage API.ts is handling the handshakes. All I'm seeing is function definitions and interface definitions. But none of the code I see right now. Right. So let's just say getStorage. Return new promise. Resolve. Reject. And then chrome.storage.local.getkey. I'm guessing that is this cryptic line is actually what requires me to read their documentation to understand what it does. So out of this entire code, the puzzle, the missing puzzle to understanding it would be chrome.storage.local.get. These are the Chrome's API language that I have yet to understand. Would you say that this is a fair analysis based on my code reading?