My attempt at solving some of the long-term issues with uBlock Origin

[frostknight]

Using cyborg's version I blocked 99% Amazon is the only one that got through... weird stuff.

[UCyborg]

Two questions:

1. Will this version automatically update when a new version is released?

2. If not, will we be able to manually install a new version overtop the previous version, or will it require an uninstall/install method?

1. It is setup in a way that it could update automatically. I have two branches, one is supposed to be cleaner, stabler, safer and this is the one meant to be seen by extension update mechanism while other may have riskier stuff from future versions. At least I initially thought "redirect-rule" implementation was riskier, although truthfully, even those utility scriptlets (which are a lot like user scripts), while they don't strike me as anything special, they were really only thoroughly tested on Firefox and Chromium.
   
   But since I already amended existing code a million times, I left things separated as they are and published the version from experimental branch because I didn't think the release was worth making without including support for "redirect-rule".
   
   
2. Generally, installing over previous should always work, unless specifically noted.

So IF I continue, I'm leaning more towards working my way slowly through changes and publish the next potential version on the stable branch, which would be seen through Add-ons manager. Though that means I have to make it to 1.22 where "redirect-rule" was implemented and who knows what hurdles are in a way.

Initially, 1.16.6b1 was going to contain support for asterisk in place of domain name in static filters, but I must have missed something important as it didn't work properly.

Right now, I'm just happy that the extension doesn't break the video player on https://www.24ur.com/ anymore and I can visit YouTube from private mode (clean state, no cookies) without waiting for cookie dialog and then waiting again for a lenghty reload.

@UCyborg don't know if you've seen this or not but may be relevant.

https://msfn.org/board/topic/183923-ext ... nt=1263189

The difference is 1.16.6b1 understands "redirect-rule" directive, these explicitly state blocking of target resource is optional, so when the request to such resource is issued, it will be redirected even in presence of another blocking filter. These filters are usually written to redirect to local empty/stub resource.

That test website appears to fetch number of files from various ad domains. I suppose it expects fetches to fail entirely, which doesn't happen when it's being redirected. So uBlock still prevented access to resource the site was asking for, but rather than making it look like it failed, it just returned a local empty file. noop.txt would be an empty text file while noop.js would be a JavaScript file that executes a function that doesn't do anything.

I see an issue with the logger here that logs redirection taking place, but not the filter that caused it.

[LAR Grizzly]

Generally, installing over previous should always work, unless specifically noted. So IF I continue, I'm leaning more towards working my way slowly through changes and publish the next potential version on the stable branch, which would be seen through Add-ons manager. Though that means I have to make it to 1.22 where "redirect-rule" was implemented and who knows what hurdles are in a way.

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on the stable branch and install manually until you are ready to implement the auto-update feature. Please take your time and don't let this project overwhelm you. I know it is taxing, but we really appreciate your effort!

[frostknight]

@UCyborg

Its a shame, but it would be good if you could cherry pick the parts of AstroSkipper's version and add them to yours, or him vice-versa, or both of you working together, etc...

@nightwing what is wrong with astroskipper's version btw?

[Night Wing]

nightwing what is wrong with astroskipper's version btw?

All of my linux Pale Moon browsers are "not installed" in Mint 21.3, MX Linux 23.2 and Debian (12.5). Since they are not installed, I think AstroSkipper's UBO is a zip linux file and what I need is the xpi file. When I extract the Pale Moon folder from that zip file, the xpi file is not there.

I'm only guessing since I am not a power user, but I think AstroSkipper's version of UBO is looking for an installed version of linux Pale Moon.

Since all of my linux Pale Moon browsers which I use are "not installed" in the three distros in my previous sentence, they all work since all versions of linux Pale Moon I use for those three distros are from linux tarballs.

This is why I stick to the "old" 1.16.4.30 version of UBO. Never had a problem with the old version.

I am probably the only person using linux Pale Moon who does not install linux Pale Moon in any of the linux distros I use now and those I have used in the past when I was distro hopping. And I was experimenting with Solyd XY, Manjaro, Linux Lite, Xubuntu, Zorin, Nobara Linux, Spiral Linux, MakuluLinux, etc.

On a side note.

I gave up using the Mercury browser; which was also not installed because when the linux Mercury browser was downloaded as a tarball, no problems. But when the person maintaining Mercury quit using the tarball and went to a zip file as a download, I could not get linux Mercury to work anymore either.

Again the common denominator is.........all of my linux Pale Moon browsers I use in any linux distro are "not installed" and they do not work with a downloaded zip file. Again, no problems with a tarball. Just a guess on my part.

[moonbat]

I think AstroSkipper's version of UBO is looking for an installed version of linux Pale Moon.

No, whether you're using an installed version or not has no effect on extensions. If you open the zip, does it have the folder structure of an extension (install.rdf file at the top, and folders like chrome/, content/ etc)? If it does, then probably he forgot to change the extension, since an xpi is just a zip file. You could try changing the file extension to .xpi and then try to install it.

[nicolaasjan]

nightwing what is wrong with astroskipper's version btw?

All of my linux Pale Moon browsers are "not installed" in Mint 21.3, MX Linux 23.2 and Debian (12.5). Since they are not installed, I think AstroSkipper's UBO is a zip linux file and what I need is the xpi file. When I extract the Pale Moon folder from that zip file, the xpi file is not there.

The file I downloaded from MediaFire is an xpi file and installs just fine in PaleMoon on Linux ('installed' via tarball) and on Windows (normally installed).
SHA1: cee55918f2544b86128284cd92bd6d13b88f4620
Install it by dragging it into the about:addons tab.

[moonbat]

Install it by dragging it into the about:addons tab.

'Install addon from file..' from the hamburger menu on about:addons also works.

[billmcct]

@UCyborgI installed your version "1.16.6b1" overwriting the 1.16.4.30 version.
I really can't see that there are any added filters.I had many to start with.
Tried running the tester site https://test.adminforge.de/adblock.html and left home
for over an hour and returned to see that, that site had done nothing. It still had the Rotating circle.
So I guess that site wont run on my system.

Edit:
I spoke too soon. After a restart many new filters showed up.

[UCyborg]

@frostknight

I did take some of the filter lists that the extension presents from AstroSkipper's version. I would rather not deviate too much from gorhill's selections, he does seem to have certain standards when selecting them, the rest are best left at user's discretion IMO. I left the Italian ABP X Files list in there after finding posts that some still prefer it, added Phishing Army lists (huge ones!) as they were suggested on another forum as possible alternative to one or two of the older list of bad hosts that weren't updated anymore.

Now they talk about lists for bypassing paywalls and such, this is specifically not addressed by uAssets. So AstroSkipper is mainly focusing on the lists extension presents.

Note that for just using any list, you don't really need an updated extension. You could even disable all default lists and just use manually imported ones. You do need an updated extension for it to fully understand those lists (if they use more advanced syntax).

I do wonder if it would eventually make more sense to start off much newer version and try re-implementing whatever parts are needed for the extension to appear as classic bootstrapped extension rather than web extension. While it's nice to be able to tackle a problem there and there, uBlock is a complex beast and neither approach seems trivial, but maybe there's still less involved in getting the "glue" code updated. If any lurker wants to take s stab at that.

Right now, we're still at the version that's 6 years behind. My coworker from development department would say it's only good to take picture with in front of a museum.

[billmcct]

@AstroSkipper has fixed the Bypass Paywall list so it updates again in his latest version.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/dfdu6uq0 ... r.xpi/file

[LuftWafflePilot]

Any news here? I'm still on the old legacy Ublock.

[gepus]

Note that for just using any list, you don't really need an updated extension. You could even disable all default lists and just use manually imported ones. You do need an updated extension for it to fully understand those lists (if they use more advanced syntax).

Exactly!

[UCyborg]

No news, I haven't messed with the extension in recent times, 1.16.6b1 is still the latest.

[LuftWafflePilot]

Be sure to let us know when there's something new. I'd like to move away from the outdated original.

[moonbat]

I'd like to move away from the outdated original.

You can already do that, be sure to backup your filters and settings first using its backup/restore feature.

[4td8s]

I'd like to move away from the outdated original.

You can already do that, be sure to backup your filters and settings first using its backup/restore feature.

which I myself have already done that a few months ago and using UCyborg's latest (and best) version - not looking back

[LuftWafflePilot]

Do I need any of the builtin filters when I normally use EasyList and EasyPrivacy? I never really understood how this stuff works.

[back2themoon]

Yes, you need them all. They are enabled by default and are meant to make uBO work better along with the others (EasyList, EasyPrivacy etc.). Check the uBO documentation and the descriptions within the filterlists themselves.

edit: I am talking about the "Built-in" sub-section which currently includes 7 filters. Not about ALL the filterlists available in the Filter Lists section of the Dashboard.

[LuftWafflePilot]

I always turned them off and everything worked just fine, heh. I thought they were redundant since I use the Easy ones. I thought they were doing mostly the same stuff, plus that too many filters negatively affect performance.