Filter

[gorhill]

Filter

[gorhill]

For 1., by design: you need to to add something to the filter so that uBlock can tell it's not a hostname -- since uBlock can also read hosts files. So if you enter just affiliate, uBlock doesn't know if it's a hostname, or a keyword to match at any position in a URL. So you found the proper solution, to use /affiliate instead.

For 2., I am going to say by design too: uBlock will match the first occurrence, whatever follow is of no importance, because it is the first occurrence which triggered the match, not the following ones. Ok, I didn't look properly what was going on.

[my-password-is-password]

It thinks the filter is regex because it starts with '/' and ends with '/'. So it matched 'ad'.

Using //ad/.*/ matches "/ad/*"... Do you really have to use it like this?

I tested //ad/.*/$important and it matched '/ad/'. The "$important" was used just for testing so uBlock uses my filter instead of another filter it was using to block it.

[my-password-is-password]

@gorhill

On that same page he provided

Try /adj/*$important , this just matches 'adj'

Then try //adj/.*/$important , this matches '/adj/......'

[gorhill]

@my-password-is-password //adj/.*/ should matches /adj/ (aside the missing escaping of forward slashes). What am I missing?

[my-password-is-password]

In the request log the filter /adj/*$important just highlights 'adj'

//adj/.*/$important works fine, I know. Is the filter /adj/* suppose to highlight "/adj/.........." in the request log?

/adj/*$important

//adj/.*/$important

Isn't /adj/*$important suppose to highlight the same as //adj/.*/$important

[gorhill]

@my-password-is-password

Ok I see, you meant your request log, I kept trying to find what you were talking about in the posted screenshot in OP.

Yes, it is wrong. Looks like a rendering issue in the logger, as the match is the right one.

[gorhill]

@my-password-is-password

Can you open a new issue for this please? I do not want to mix up everything. There were no issue in OP, so I want that part cleared. You found a very specific issue, I want it separate rather than piled on inside another issue. This allow me to accurately match code changes with very specific issues.

I thought this could be a quick fix but it is not despite appearing trivial. It is definitely a rendering issue (internal pattern matching works as expected), but it finds its root cause far from where the rendering is done in the dev log.

[my-password-is-password]

@gorhill

His issue is the same, I think. Look at his screenshot where ad is highlighted instead of '/ad/'. I just used the example '/adj/*' becuase nothing followed /ad/ to make it more visible to see in the request log.

[gorhill]

@my-password-is-password

That's right, I see it now. Sorry about this.

[my-password-is-password]

@gorhill

Does ABP filter syntax consider '/ad/' as regex or is that just uBlock? To match just '/ad/' in uBLock you have to use '//ad//'? I don't know if it suppose to be like..

[gorhill]

@my-password-is-password

It's just a rendering thing. Internally, the filter is really evaluated as /ad/*, i.e. not as a regex.

[my-password-is-password]

Oh ok. Thanks

[polilla]

Thanks for re-opening and investigation.
/ad/* or /ads/* are "/ad/" or "/ads/"
This is the syntax from Adblock Plus.

[polilla]

Ah, ok, gorhill said that this is only a rendering thing, because internaly this filter block how it must.

[polilla]

This is what i learned. When its starts with a Slash "/" and ended with a Slash "/" you must mark it with a "*".

[lewisje]

yes, because if ABP or AdBlock or uBlock can recognize a blocking filter as a regex, it will

[polilla]

And i use this moment for say that uBlock is confused for the people.
Firefox AMO is now 0.9.1.0. You has Version 0.9.3.0 and more.
My Chromium-Browser under Linux updated from uBlock to uBlockO.
This is a totally chaos in my opinion.

[polilla]

I can understand Google. You put your uBlock with same code, same pictures, all is the same in Google. And now your are wondering why they kicked you?

[polilla]

All as is tu comunicate with the people befor you do anything. Not after.

[harshanvn]

@polilla Please try to stay on the topic.

Firefox AMO is now 0.9.1.0. You has Version 0.9.3.0 and more.

This is nothing a uBlock Dev can do. It is the AMO process too slow.

I can understand Google. You put your uBlock with same code, same pictures, all is the same in Google. And now your are wondering why they kicked you?

there is thread reg. this. Don't mix up the other things here (#50)

[polilla]

Sorry you are right. But AMO-process is now completed since yesterday.

[RandomAcronym]

I can understand Google. You put your uBlock with same code, same pictures, all is the same in Google. And now your are wondering why they kicked you?

@polilla Google took the original uBlock off the CWS, not the one "put" up this month...

[older7]

Sorry for the off-topic, Lithuanian news portal blocks viewers with adblockers from their videos http://www.lrytas.lt/ Maybe there is a the solution for this problem or what? Thank you.

[lewisje]

For questions about issues with third-party lists (including "anti-adblock" because all it does is check whether certain stuff was loaded or hidden, websites can't directly detect ad-blocking extensions), go here, because we use the same filter lists that ABP does: https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=40a7bda4087df46e76988d185b384b7a

[older7]

So far helps me solve problems reek/anti-adblock-killer filter.

[lewisje]

Yes, that and the Adblock Warning Removal List should cover your bases well.

If you use Reek's filters, be sure to also install the associated UserScript, which makes sophisticated changes to certain anti-Adblock tools that filter-lists alone cannot: https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer#step-3-userscript