Same filters and diff extensions but diff results, why? #24340
-
|
There is no issue if uBO filters are enabled on the uBO side, but why is this so? Thanks in advance. Tested site: Screenshot
Edit: I forgot to disable a filter you see in the picture on the uBO side. I tested again and same result. Screenshot
Update: If i disable EasyList filter too, no issue. But in AdGuard extension, EasyList filter is included in AdGuard Base filter list, how does this happen? Am I missing something? 😄 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 2 comments 24 replies
-
|
I can't reproduce
Test again in a new browser profile with only uBO and its default settings. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@garry-ut99 Exactly as you said, you explained it perfectly. Thank you. 😄 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I didn't test the case but as said, whether blocking with it unblocked, this one Each of filter list is built upon specific assumption of each blocker and such differences appear also about e.g. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Just in case, I hope the Filter logs from two separate extensions can help. AdGuard Filtering log
uBO Logger output |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
-
Your comment is understandable enough. I think there is no need to go deep on this topic then. 🙂 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Tested and it's certainly GFC. If you disabled uBf and enabled AG Base, you need |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
-
|
It's not "earlier", uBO doesn't support generic css filter without |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@stephenhawk8054 You previously wrote this clarification regarding Facebook issues, see: #3367 (comment) Currently, Facebook ads and sponsored content can be blocked using the AdGuard extension and AdGuard filters. Although some issues arise, they are eventually resolved, making the overall situation positive. However, on the current uBO side, Facebook is still displaying sponsored ads. Given this, I’m wondering whether the Facebook-specific rules in the AdGuard Base filter list can be adapted for compatibility with uBlock Origin (uBO) under these conditions. 🤔 I ask because there are noticeable differences in functionality and performance between the AdGuard and uBO extensions. I have personally observed these differences while testing various websites (e.g., race conditions, slow responses, and memory leaks). Additionally, AdGuard filters are frequently updated regardless of the workload, whereas I believe this may not be feasible on the uBO side due to certain constraints. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Raw JS cannot be updated via filter lists, because it would violate extension stores' no remote code execution policy. They have to be updated with the whole extension. Previously AG can update raw JS on chrome store only due to the store doesn't care about reviewing, but now with MV3, google doesn't allow it any more either. Firefox store is completely prohibited. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have been thinking of supporting raw f list maintainers think it's would be a top improvement to have versus other things to do, I am willing to work on this. Also, this would have to be filters available only from trusted sources, so AG wouldn't qualify since only uBO's own lists are to be trusted. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I actually had one concern with raw JS when you discussed about it, which is what is the best way to make exceptions to the raw JS filter via quick update filter lists, since the raw JS is integrated to the extension (I assume that those would still have to be updated via extensions, is it correct) ? The hash-based names might make sense I think if I understand correctly. So something like this: example.com#@#+js(somehash)? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, assembled at build time, thus updated only via new published versions. Also yes, generated names would be used for exceptions. At runtime, uBO would use the same algorithm to derive name, then would use this to reference the scriptlet, hence can be used for exceptions or even to reuse the raw scriptlet for other sites if needed. I gather sometimes no scriptlet fulfill the job while a small bit of raw JS would work. Downside is this requires an extension update, so uBOL would benefit most from this. Anyways, I need to know whether this is something that would really be useful to have. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yeah, it's useful for some |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Regardless of what is the reason of the current specific issue,
speaking generally: 100% compatibility all the time between uBO and AG extensions, even when using the same filter list, is not guaranteed, because some filters might be just not 100% compatible, like it's not guaranteed that the same website will work/look 100% same in different browsers (for example: Firefox vs Chrome).