Correct data for Storage Access API

[queengooborg]

This PR corrects the data for the Storage Access API for Chrome. This feature is reserved to Chrome's proprietary first-party sets and is not available to all websites, so it is marked as partial implementation.

Additionally, this removes the version_removed set on the flags. Not only were they incorrect (they were off by one), but the flag still enables the feature for websites not within first-party sets. (Although keeping the flag is technically against our irrelevant flag data policy, I feel that it is still worthwhile to retain as I personally don't consider gated access like first-party sets or origin trials to be "supported".)

[Elchi3]

LGTM but like to hear what @chrisdavidmills thinks

[chrisdavidmills]

LGTM but like to hear what @chrisdavidmills thinks

See #20098 (comment)

[queengooborg]

From #20098 (comment):

is it correct to say "Only available to Google Chrome's first-party sets" for hasStorageAccess and the storage-access permission? When I tested them, they were available just fine outside a first-party set. I think it is just requestStorageAccess() that is only available in first-party sets.

The storage-access permission may be "available" regardless of first-party set status, I didn't actually test that! hasStorageAccess, on the other hand, is not available on websites that aren't a first-party set, as confirmed in both manual testing and by the collector.

[chrisdavidmills]

The storage-access permission may be "available" regardless of first-party set status, I didn't actually test that! hasStorageAccess, on the other hand, is not available on websites that aren't a first-party set, as confirmed in both manual testing and by the collector.

I just tried running the following in the console while on MDN:

document.hasStorageAccess().then((result) => { console.log(result) })

And it returned true. It looks to me like it is still available, even if the result isn't particularly that useful.

[queengooborg]

Hmm... Is MDN defined as a first-party set, or is it possible that there's another requirement that MDN has configured? In a guest user on Chrome 114 with all of the default flags on about:blank, hasStorageAccess is not defined:

[chrisdavidmills]

@queengooborg ahhhh, wait, I think I'm being stupid! I'm using Chrome Canary, which means that it is probably enabled fully by default rather than partially. Continue as you were ;-)

[queengooborg]

Ah, that would do it, haha!

How does this PR look then? Any changes needed?

[chrisdavidmills]

In light of that realization. I'm approving. Nice one @queengooborg