Add ServiceWorkerGlobalScope.serviceWorker

[skyclouds2001]

Description

add ServiceWorkerGlobalScope.serviceWorker documentation

Motivation

Additional details

https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#serviceworkerglobalscope-interface

https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#service-worker-global-scope-serviceworker

Related issues and pull requests

Fixes #29123
Fixes #29541

[github-actions]

Preview URLs

• /en-US/docs/Web/API/ServiceWorkerGlobalScope/serviceWorker
• /en-US/docs/Web/API/ServiceWorkerGlobalScope
• /en-US/docs/Web/API/ServiceWorker

(comment last updated: 2023-12-18 00:09:07)

[hamishwillee]

Flyby comment,

• YOu might add a trivial example, like this https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/serviceWorker#examples
• it seems odd that this accessor is not mentioned in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/ServiceWorker

[skyclouds2001]

Flyby comment,

• YOu might add a trivial example, like this https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/serviceWorker#examples
• it seems odd that this accessor is not mentioned in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/ServiceWorker

For I, I think as it is a simple getter, maybe it is not quite necessary to provide an example

Also, as ServiceWorkerGlobalScope.registration and ServiceWorkerGlobalScope.clients do not provide an example as the same as ServiceWorkerGlobalScope.serviceWorker. If it is necessary to add an exaple, I think it is better to do this in another pull request

For II, I'll create another pull request to add the additonal content to ServiceWorker documentation, see #29541

@hamishwillee your idea?

[hamishwillee]

For I, I think as it is a simple getter, maybe it is not quite necessary to provide an example

I've had reviewers ask for this of me because readers like to see an example - it makes copy-paste easy and confirms that the code to use the API will indeed be what they think it is.

As a fly-by reviewer I'm explicitly removing myself as the person that places requirements on you - I'm just adding comments. BUT, if you do add an example it should be done in this PR and so should the ServiceWorker docs - either it is related an important and it should be done as the same work, or it isn't and can be ignored for the PR. But creating another PR just increases the chance it doesn't get done.

[skyclouds2001]

As #29451 seems to not be working, that issue will fix in this pull request

[skyclouds2001]

For I, I think as it is a simple getter, maybe it is not quite necessary to provide an example

I've had reviewers ask for this of me because readers like to see an example - it makes copy-paste easy and confirms that the code to use the API will indeed be what they think it is.

As a fly-by reviewer I'm explicitly removing myself as the person that places requirements on you - I'm just adding comments. BUT, if you do add an example it should be done in this PR and so should the ServiceWorker docs - either it is related an important and it should be done as the same work, or it isn't and can be ignored for the PR. But creating another PR just increases the chance it doesn't get done.

Thanks for your suggestion!

[hamishwillee]

@wbamberg If you don't look this week I will try to next week.

[skyclouds2001]

cc @hamishwillee would you please review this if available

[hamishwillee]

Thanks @skyclouds2001 . I removed the Syntax sections - not used as that is "Value" for properties. Decided you were right - we can live without an example for a trivial getter. Merging.

[hamishwillee]

PS Sorry for the delay. Finally!