Need help to fix the uBlock Origin logger

[Tomaso]

gorhill has declined to fix this issue in uBO Legacy:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock- ... ssues/385/
..but points out that "pull requests are welcomed".
Anyone feel up to the task?

[JustOff]

Off-topic:
Please use more specific topic titles, i.e. "Need help to fix the uBlock Origin logger" instead of just "uBlock Origin".

[Fedor2]

I want to help.
checked with rule ##iframe[src*="annonse"]
https://www.dagbladet.no/annonse/70179055/

And did not get what that rule do actually, see no difference.
Me was used only || and @@ type rules.

[Tomaso]

Off-topic:
Please use more specific topic titles, i.e. "Need help to fix the uBlock Origin logger" instead of just "uBlock Origin".

The other generic "uBlock Origin" thread has been locked, so I figured it would be a good idea to start a new one.

--

checked with rule ##iframe[src*="annonse"]
https://www.dagbladet.no/annonse/70179055/

And did not get what that rule do actually, see no difference.

Try this one instead then:

Code: Select all

###cookie:not(body):not(html):not([href*="cookieclicker"])

..at https://www.acronis.com/en-us/support/contact-us/.
Perhaps it's more apparent, at your end.

[Fedor2]

See no difference either, so i consider that type rules maybe for newer ublock only.
Can you just tell what is it to change or block?

update:
According https://kb.adguard.com/en/general/how-t ... les-syntax
### is hiding an element, does it mean that it hide the cookie and all? what is the point?

update2:
Made test page with test div id element but the rule hides nothing... but do hide on the basilisk with ublock 17.4.

Conclusion:
To show in the logger at first the rule handler is to be ported from the newer version.

[Tomaso]

Don't know why you aren't seeing it, because both of them should be very easy to spot!

Example #1:
At https://www.acronis.com/en-us/support/contact-us/, the following rule blocks the support modules:

Code: Select all

###cookie:not(body):not(html):not([href*="cookieclicker"])

Screenshot:


Example #2:
At https://www.dagbladet.no/annonse/70179055/, the following rule blocks the embeded video:

Code: Select all

##iframe[src*="annonse"]

Screenshot:


Neither one of these rules shows up in uBO Legacy's logger.

[Fedor2]

This i get already, rule must hide those things, but it does not work, nothing is hidden, even with all other addons disabled. Does it works for you?

[Tomaso]

Yes, it works just fine.
Pehaps you've accidentally disabled cosmetic filtering or something?
('Dashboard' > 'Settings' > 'Default behavior' > "Disable cosmetic filtering")

[Fedor2]

Oh, that was "Ignore generic cosmetic filters".

Now the test works and shows in the logger properly.

however on support.acronis.com not shows.
Doing further research...

[Fedor2]

Well i got this fixed, your rules both show properly and nothing wrong is happens.
But i do not fully understand that stuff, and shall be making request to gorhill.

[Tomaso]

Yes, I noticed your post @ GitHub.
Great work! :)

Awaiting gorhill's response.

[Moonchild]

Somehow I doubt Gorhill will be wanting to do anything specific for us at this point, especially considering he's painting us black on Reddit apparently about "not giving credit for Mozilla patches" -- while the truth of the matter is that our patches are merely based on the work Mozilla does, and code is kept similar on purpose (e.g. variable names) for future code comparisons, but they are written specifically for UXP (and if not, patches applied will have the Mozilla authorship data on them).

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Are we *gulp* stealing code from Mozilla again? Oh no, we must stop at once!

[Isengrim]

Off-topic:
I have a hard time believing that Moonchild would have made such an egregious mistake in fulfilling the obligations of the MPL 2.0 license (or any other license), or that if such a mistake had been made, that it would not be properly rectified in a timely fashion.

[coffeebreak]

Off-topic:

Somehow I doubt Gorhill will be wanting to do anything specific for us at this point, especially considering he's painting us black on Reddit apparently about "not giving credit for Mozilla patches"

Link to gorhill's Reddit post, so people can read it directly:
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/ai95us/basilisk_browser_drops_webextension_support/een8fr0/


Respectfully, there is no basis to connect gorhill's opinions on Pale Moon patch attribution with his response to an issue a user raises in the legacy branch of uBO. I have never seen a sign that he makes decisions in that manner, but rather decides based on particulars of each issue.

If you want to respond to what was posted, why not do that directly in Reddit?
Or in the alternative, make a blog post?
But in any case, please consider to leave this support thread in peace to deal purely with the logger issue raised.

[Tomaso]

If you want to respond to what was posted, why not do that directly in Reddit?

If someone does, please stick to facts, and avoid flaming the situation.
I fear that a heated discussion only will serve to hurt us so-called "legacy" users even further.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

I have a hard time believing that Moonchild would have made such an egregious mistake in fulfilling the obligations of the MPL 2.0 license (or any other license), or that if such a mistake had been made, that it would not be properly rectified in a timely fashion.

For the record, there is no attribution clause in the MPL 2.0 that requires all sources of research for patches written OR for patches themselves be credited. I'm also pretty sure that everyone committing the patches to Mozilla that were used to create our patches are already mentioned as authors to the Mozilla code (also in our tree, see the authors file).
If patches would apply directly, I have to the best of my knowledge also always retained the original authorship mention of those patches. See the smattering of names mentioned on github as commit contributors.
As always, too, if someone wants to be credited who isn't yet credited as a contributor, they only have to ask.

I think what some people are disgruntled about is that I don't tend to retain Bugzilla bug numbers since they do not apply to our own bug tracking, and in the case of sec bugs I additionally don't see a reason to paint a bulls-eye on a potential problem either if linked to a bug that requires sec authorization to view.

[Tomaso]

From GitHub (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock- ... ssues/385/):

Crosspost removed.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Why are you cross-posting.. This isn't a thing that is allowed since Mozillazine.. Please stop.

MODERATOR: Please clean this up.

[Admin]

Crossposts removed, warning issued.