Don't rewrite requests on the Instagram reserved URL list

[simonbrazell]

Don't rewrite requests on the Instagram reserved URL list

[SimonBrazell]

Those changes should all be implemented in v1.1.21

[SimonBrazell]

Hi @cloudrac3r thanks for the very detailed feedback and creating Bibliogram!

I'm sorry this extension has caused you grief, I'll do my best to sort these issues out as soon as I can. When I added support for Bibliogram to this extension it was on advice from one of the extension's users, they didn't give me much info to go on, so I basically just did it by trial and error, so I'm not surprised there are mistakes. Sorry for not reaching out for more information, I'll endeavour to be more communicative in the future, it's actually something I should do for all the services this extension makes use of...

The regex you linked to is a list of 'reserved paths' that aren't redirected as users, I can do something similar for the reserved paths mentioned in your wiki. I'm wondering where I should redirect those that aren't implemented on Bibliogram though? Is there any appropriate page on Bibliogram for these redirects?

Apologies again for the grief this issue may have caused, I'll try to get this fixed up this week some time.

[cloudrac3r]

No problem.

I'm wondering where I should redirect those that aren't implemented on Bibliogram though?

Your choice. For things like embed.js and /accounts, I'd suggest not rewriting at all, and just letting the request go to Instagram. For things like /explore and /directory, you could either not rewrite, or you could send the user to a 404 page on Bibliogram. I can make a custom "this feature is not implemented" page if that helps. It's your choice in the end.

Why are paths from Bibliogram in the reserved paths regex? Could you explain to me how this works/why this is necessary?

Don't be afraid to ask if you have more questions/comments!

[SimonBrazell]

Your choice.

I'm easy, for now I'll just redirect them to the 404 page, but if you do include a "this feature is not implemented" page at some point I will use that instead.

Why are paths from Bibliogram in the reserved paths regex? Could you explain to me how this works/why this is necessary?

Some of them probably aren't necessary, I'll have a closer look at this when I fix this all up.

Don't be afraid to ask if you have more questions/comments!

Thank you! I will likely take you up on this 😀

[cloudrac3r]

Oh, please note that there is only ever one path element for profiles — /yyy could be a user page, but /yyy/zzz is definitely not. So I suggest not rewriting anything that has more than one path element.

[SimonBrazell]

Oh, please note that there is only ever one path element for profiles

Okay thanks, I'll include a check for this in the redirect also.

[SimonBrazell]

Hi @cloudrac3r , pretty sure I've got a solution to this problem but I thought I should run it by you first:

• Only requests coming from the main_frame (a document that is loaded for a top-level frame), are redirected, so nothing coming from an iframe or script which should stop the extension breaking embeds as they are not currently implemented by Bibliogram anyway.
• instagram.com, www.instagram.com, help.instagram.com, about.instagram.com only these domains are redirected to Bibliogram (platform.instagram.com not included).
• /p, /developer, /legal, /about, /explore, /support, /press, /api, /privacy, /safety, /admin, /help, /terms, /contact, /blog, /igtv these reserved paths are redirected to Bibliogram, where the user will be either met with a 404 if they are not available or some content if there is something implemented for them.
• /accounts, /embeds.js, /embed.js these paths will not be redirected to Bibliogram.

Let me know if there are any issues.

Cheers!

[cloudrac3r]

Sounds perfect!

[SimonBrazell]

Cool I'll fix up the other issue you reported this afternoon and do a new build that includes the changes.