Browser/API feedback


We would like to give some feedback concerning the SAFE Browser and its API.

API Documentation
We’re aware the documentation is being worked on, so currently we’d just like to mention that it’s somewhat confusing that the term “secret key” is always used in the API, whereas libsodium seems to distinguish between “secret key” and “private key”, the former being used in the context of symmetric cryptography and the latter in the context of asymmetric cryptography.

API Desired Features
The only thing we truly miss is MutableData ownership transfer support, though because this has been discussed in the past we assume MaidSafe devs are aware of this and that it’s just not ready yet.

What we’d also appreciate to see at some point is crypto functions for creating and validating public-key signatures. We currently use a library for that so we’re fine for now, but it’s safer to be handled by the authenticator/browser.

Automated Testing
We’d like to be able to test our browser apps automatically, so we are wondering if the SAFE Browser can be run in a headless-mode (already or in the future)? It’d be convenient if it’d be possible from within tests to for example register accounts, log into and out of accounts, and accept and deny app authorisation requests. We looked but were unable to currently find such a headless-mode.

Thank you for all your hard work!


@Seneca there’s no true headless baked into electron as yet (latest: Spectron does seem to enable some electron automation, though for testing in the browser as it stands you’ll have to do some digging to get to the DOM of your webapp, I expect.

It’s certainly something we’ll have to look at in the future, though not something we’re on right now I have to say.

we assume MaidSafe devs are aware of this and that it’s just not ready yet.

^ Accurate :wink:

Good point on the docs as well, we’ll look to clarify this :+1:

How to use safe_client_libs in python?

Related in a way to headless perhaps (and asking here to keep it low profile :wink:), what are current thoughts on timing (pre launch?) and implementation routes to mobile browser?

I see there isn’t capacity to support mobile within the Beaker team although there is the desire (see here). But there’s a related project Bunsen that may well feed back into a mobile Beaker.



would it be this one instead ?


Yes, not sure how that happened - I went to the page to get the link! Now fixed thanks :slight_smile:


Can’t really clarify anything for mobile, sorry @happybeing. I’m not sure on any specifics at the moment. We definitely need a mobile browser. How best we get there and when depends on a few things I’d say.