feat: add securelocalstorage (Local Storage V2)

[ampelectrecuted]

Basically like the current Local Storage extension but less hackable.

[ampelectrecuted]

@Brackets-Coder could this be reviewed?

[GarboMuffin]

i'm not opposed to making the existing local storage extension store the namespace in extensionStorage so that people don't need to run that block all that time, and you can make it generate a UUID on first launch if you want, that's fine

but calling this scheme "secure" is definitely misleading. you shouldn't be doing that

[ampelectrecuted]

but calling this scheme "secure" is definitely misleading. you shouldn't be doing that

Resolved

[GarboMuffin]

is there a reason you can't add the autogenerated id + persistence to the original extension?

[PPPDUD]

I am not approving LLM-generated code.

[ampelectrecuted]

I am not approving LLM-generated code.

I have removed the LLM-generated code

[PPPDUD]

@ampelectrecuted Thank you for removing the LLM-generated code.

[ampelectrecuted]

!format

[GarboMuffin]

is there a reason you can't add the autogenerated id + persistence to the original extension?

[ampelectrecuted]

is there a reason you can't add the autogenerated id + persistence to the original extension?

That's actually a pretty good idea, but it might cause compatibility issues the way I'm seeing it.
Might wait until others review the extension for some feedback before possibly closing it.

[GarboMuffin]

it shouldn't cause compatibility issues unless the project is showing the warnings about running blocks in the wrong order, in which case it is already broken and we're not breaking it any more

[GarboMuffin]

#2270