Add "setUserAgent" method to example

[daannijkamp]

Google checks on user agent, otherwise it will show another version of Google

[elisherer]

You can see in my PR 137 that I changed the page to a static page served as data URI.
Relying on Google for our unit/integration tests is not a good thing.
(EDIT: removed reference to PR because of misreading the PR)

[adieuadieu]

Hi @daannijkamp thanks for raising this PR. I'm not sure I agree with it. While it's useful to be able to set the user-agent for testing one's own websites (which is why we have the setUserAgent() method), I don't think we should actively encourage faking user-agent's in our examples. We want Chromeless to be a force-for-good and therefore not, by default, hide our identity as an automated user.

@elisherer the scripts in the examples/ folder are not intended to be unit tests. They're standalone examples of various use-cases.

[daannijkamp]

@adieuadieu It was not my intention to fake a User-Agent. If Google doesn't recognise the User-Agent, (at all), it will show a version of Google that is different than a normal user will get.
(Ajax vs Non Ajax, different layout, different classes)

This makes the example somewhat confusing.

Maybe you can change the default User-Agent to something like
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Chromeless/2.1; +https://github.com/graphcool/chromeless
(https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1061943?hl=nl)

[elisherer]

@adieuadieu , you are right, I misread the PR.

[joelgriffith]

I'm not sure that gating off the user-agent is worth doing as, at some point, we'll allow access to the underlying protocol itself, thus allowing users to do so. I agree that we should be championing good behavior, just not sure to what ends we're willing to take that

[adieuadieu]

@joelgriffith we already support setting user-agent with the setUserAgent() method. My concern about whether we should encourage faking the user-agent when making requests to Google in one of our main example scripts. But maybe it's not really that big of a deal. I suppose setting the user-agent to something like Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Chromeless/2.1; +https://github.com/graphcool/chromeless as suggested by @daannijkamp would let us make a statement about good behavior within the example itself. @daannijkamp — does that user-agent make Google behave normally?

[daannijkamp]

@adieuadieu
Unfortunately not, but it does make it better. Google checks if the User Agent is a valid User Agent of one of the popular browsers.

My advice is:

• Don't use Chromeless 1.2.0 as the default User Agent. At least add the compatibility flag token
• An alternative is to add an API to use the User Agent of Chrome (used in headless mode)(useDefaultChromeUserAgent(true))

Chromeless 1.2.0

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Chromeless/2.1; +https://github.com/graphcool/chromeless

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.110 Safari/537.36

[adieuadieu]

@daannijkamp changing the default user agent to Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Chromeless/1.2; +https://github.com/graphcool/chromeless is a good idea. To your second point, rather than adding an API, we could add a Chromeless constructor option which disables Chromeless from overriding the User Agent.