Undertaker Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Just now realised I could have optimized the above rules further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 10, 2018 Author Share Posted February 10, 2018 Yes, never mind — go ahead . . . . . optimize it, re-test and re-post (there's something on my mind, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 The result won't change, it's just that it would use less individual rules if wanted but then I got reminded that the whole purpose of creating those individual rules(finding problem areas) would be gone. So, long story short, skip that last post of mine. @dcs18 So If I may ask what did you observe from all this testing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 10, 2018 Author Share Posted February 10, 2018 The idea has got nothing to do with the "blocking" itself — but rather, about enjoying granularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Speaking of which, what about this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 10, 2018 Author Share Posted February 10, 2018 There's something else on my mind — not able to demonstrate it because of my handicap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 12 hours ago, Undertaker said: My rules for YT as required were:- ! Global Rules :// @@||*$~third-party,stylesheet @@||*$~third-party,script @@||*$~third-party,font @@||*$~third-party,image @@||*$~third-party,media @@||*$~third-party,subdocument @@||*$~third-party,xmlhttprequest @@||*$third-party,stylesheet @@||*$third-party,image @@||*$third-party,font @@||local.adguard.com/adguard-ajax-api/injections/content-script.js^$script ! Site Individual Rules @@||clients1.google.com^$script,domain=youtube.com @@||googlevideo.com^$xmlhttprequest,domain=youtube.com Log for blocked request for same video(notice the rule in place for difference): https://i.imgur.com/4O6X6D5.png Can you temporarily disable/delete all your Global Rules and then re-test the same video with the following Global Rules (keeping all other parameters constant including your Individual Rules):— ://$font,~third-party ://$font,third-party ://$media,~third-party ://$media,third-party ://$object,~third-party ://$object,third-party ://$object-subrequest,~third-party ://$object-subrequest,third-party ://$other,~third-party ://$other,third-party ://$script,~third-party ://$script,third-party ://$websocket,~third-party ://$websocket,third-party ://$xmlhttprequest,~third-party ://$xmlhttprequest,third-party @@||$font,~third-party @@||$font,third-party @@||$image,~third-party @@||$image,third-party @@||$media,~third-party @@||$script,~third-party @@||$stylesheet,~third-party @@||$stylesheet,third-party @@||$subdocument,~third-party @@||$xmlhttprequest,~third-party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 My rules:- ://$font,~third-party ://$font,third-party ://$media,~third-party ://$media,third-party ://$object,~third-party ://$object,third-party ://$object-subrequest,~third-party ://$object-subrequest,third-party ://$other,~third-party ://$other,third-party ://$script,~third-party ://$script,third-party ://$websocket,~third-party ://$websocket,third-party ://$xmlhttprequest,~third-party ://$xmlhttprequest,third-party @@||$font,~third-party @@||$font,third-party @@||$image,~third-party @@||$image,third-party @@||$media,~third-party @@||$script,~third-party @@||$stylesheet,~third-party @@||$stylesheet,third-party @@||$subdocument,~third-party @@||$xmlhttprequest,~third-party @@||clients1.google.com^$script,domain=youtube.com @@||googlevideo.com^$xmlhttprequest,domain=youtube.com Log for blocked request: https://i.imgur.com/mlZEVvQ.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 Good, as far as the blocking part is concerned - the results for all the 3 tests are same (as expected.) Now, checkout the Filtering Rule column on all the 3 logs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 What am I overlooking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 If you are doing some critical browsing (for example on a banking site) where you don't really have the time to craft Exception Rules but at the same time would like to continue blocking as many elements as possible without excluding all the elements — the log indicates clearly exactly which Filtering Rule needs to be disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Ah ok, I understand. I haven't had much of a chance to use those banking sites. But all this theory is worthless if the addon doesn't work. If you want I could run your FF profile in my system and check. Atleast it will tell if the problem is in the browser or out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 On 1/26/2018 at 10:25 PM, Undertaker said: On 1/25/2018 at 9:35 PM, dcs18 said: ://$script,app=firefox.exe ://$script,third-party,app=firefox.exe Just noticed that the first of these rules make the second one redundant and obselete. The redundancy on my previous implementation is also now resolved with the use of these granular filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 11 minutes ago, Undertaker said: But all this theory is worthless if the addon doesn't work. Matter-of-fact, I only realized the potential when I disabled my own set of Global Rules to test yours, meaning — it has been tried and tested on my Program and is no longer a theory (regardless of the working state of the add-on.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Oh, I still believe that using both is giving me good cover with the addon handling these little things and the program working as a blanket cover. Plus on the program it's always HTML blocking issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 21 hours ago, dcs18 said: Hmmm . . . . . pretty much, what was expected — the program blocking is working it's way inwards into Firefox whereas the add-on blocking is working outwards (it's already present within the browser.) Have also understood how the program blocking differs from the add-on blocking. The program injects the entire HTML from the outside and then starts blocking — the add-on injection is already present through the following script inside the core of the HTML:— local.adguard.com/adguard-ajax-api/injections/content-script.js Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, dcs18 said: The program injects the entire HTML from the outside and then starts blocking — the add-on injection is already present through the following script inside the core of the HTML:— That script is not for addon, it's for letting the program do it's work. If that was blocked like we did in your set of rules, it's solely on the addon and the program is out of the equation. That's why you'll see in all of my rule sets this particular rule to let the program work where the addon wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 Nah, that script does not exist for me in program mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Strange because that's how Adguard injects it cosmetic filtering, stealth mode things. And that is definitely a program-only thingy. I have to allow it in my addon just for that limited connection to be maintained between addon and program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 The only one unfinished business (for me) now, is the lack of granularity on HTML on program mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 16 minutes ago, dcs18 said: The only one unfinished business (for me) now, is the lack of granularity on HTML on program mode. So then you will be using the program only then and not the program with addon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 Oh yes, the most lucrative point is that it's certainly blocking more. The only downside I find in the program (beyond my control) is the slower loading times — the (lack of) HTML granularity gives me a feeling that it's fixable (probably something that I ought be doing differently.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Again more wouldn't be the word I would use. The fact that the loading is messed up just pisses me. If you are only work in the program, the amount of rules/work would increase and they would not be required if for e.g. you were using a combo thing. Also one of the reason of increased loading times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 The main reason for the faster loading times is that the add-on is already manifested within the HTML. When I displace the Global Rules on my program with the very same one you're using on your add-on, some of my logins are blocked, at source itself — this is a most definitive indication that the program is blocking more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 minute ago, dcs18 said: The main reason for the faster loading times is that the add-on is already manifested within the HTML. That and let me explain through an e.g. OK so when you have created global rules you allowe for third-party images. So, for instance, even with set of my rules(or yours) , there were images loading from googleadservices and googlesyndication on youtube. Now becuase I have addon with program, those images although allowed by the addon(because of our rules) would still be blocked by the program because of the rules present in filter lists. Hence not only it blocks the request, thereby saving bandwidth and also decreasing loading time. This is just one e.g on youtube site, you can observe it on other sites as well. 6 minutes ago, dcs18 said: this is a most definitive indication that the program is blocking more. More here = only HTML(which is incorrect blocking). Or else can you give an e.g where it is blocking more of 'other types' of requests(like image,script,xhr,frame or anything other than HTML). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.