Test Service-Worker: script behavior

[lidel]

Gateways should guard against the risk described in ipfs/kubo#4025
(additional notes in gateway spec draft here)

Not guarding should be punished with a big red error.

[SgtPooki]

Not guarding should be punished with a big red error.

@juliaxbow what should "a big red error" look like, including the consideration of any design changes after #93 ?

[juliaxbow]

@SgtPooki would this error notice pop up when someone clicked on a "bad" gateway? If so, suggest something like the following (with updated error text)

[SgtPooki]

@juliaxbow The public gateway checker is more like an api status page: it shows "success" emojis/icons for desired properties of each gateway, or "failure" emojis/icons for undesired properties. i.e. we would want the information communicated without any user interaction

---

Examples:
Currently, if a gateway is offline, the gateway url is grayed out (or dimmed), if it's online, it displays as a link.
If a gateway supports CORS, it displays a success checkmark emoji, if not, it displays an X emoji.

---

So I imagine something to communicate not protecting against this error could be

• a red overlay across the entire horizontal space, with a "more info" question mark.
  • quick solution thats easy to implement but may not support identifying multiple risks
• a new column/icon for any risks that displays a count of risks not mitigated; when clicked on, you could obtain more info of each risk via a modal
  • slightly more challenging implementation that supports an infinite number of risks as we grow
• a combination of the above?

[juliaxbow]

Spoke with the team in the IPFS GUI triage and will work to redesign the public gateway checker at large with considerations around additional columns. Will update this issue as well but it seems the primary issue is being tracked at #93