oldschool

Level 57
Verified
But sometimes it's needed.
So, for me the current option of enabling it only after pressing ctrl two times is great.
Idk if there's any better solution but try to add the following exceptions to "My Rules".
Code:
@@||config-prod.choice.faktor.io/*/faktor.js$script,domain=omroepwest.nl
@@||cmp.choice.faktor.io/dist/*/cmp.bundle.js$script,domain=omroepwest.nl
@@||cw.choice.faktor.io/dist/*/index.html$subdocument,domain=omroepwest.nl
(y)

Make sure you've noop the necessary hostnames if you use medium/hard mode.
Making rules such as these obviates the need for Allow.

Unfortunately, I'm not a good rule-maker. Maybe @Stas and @redsworn or others can post rule-making tips using the logger. That would be helpful to some of us.

BTW: I don't use Firefox so I've been on the sidelines for this discussion.
 
Last edited:

redsworn

Level 4
Verified
Making rules such as these obviates the need for Allow.
IMO, allow is okay when being used in Dynamic URL filtering. The problem is people often forgot or even unaware about this and just allowing all request-type to the destination.

Unfortunately, I'm not a good rule-maker. Maybe @Stas and @redsworn can post rule-making tips using the logger. That would be helpful to some of us.
Honestly, I'm not an expert myself. I virtually have 0 knowledge about CSS and web components in general. I only learn by doing and reading the docs. So that's why I often have trouble at explaining things aside for being non-native English speaker. :LOL:
But thanks for the suggestion! I will strongly consider it.
 

Terry Ganzi

Level 25
Verified
OK, on this site I could not get it to display the pictures in FF with uBO hard mode.

Anyone like to take up the challenge? Thanks again

View attachment 244319

I step away from my pc now I'm back as i read somewhere in these comments it seems like different firefox users get different results example:
All I allowed was scripts.
 

Attachments

  • 1.PNG
    1.PNG
    507.8 KB · Views: 67

Terry Ganzi

Level 25
Verified
That's not a screenshot from Firefox though. The absence of uncloaked CNAMEs is the dead giveaway here.

I find that is the problem on this forum, because another person experience is different
you have persons saying what it can't be or what it must be just cut it out once the person deals with you honest return the same energy on till they give you a solid reason not to.
 

Attachments

  • 2.PNG
    2.PNG
    723.1 KB · Views: 59
  • 3.PNG
    3.PNG
    554.1 KB · Views: 57

Terry Ganzi

Level 25
Verified
I also find that it's disingenuous to purposely omit important non-private part of the information out of the screenshot. And for that here I attach screenshots from Firefox and Edge.
View attachment 244334View attachment 244336

I have no clue what your trying to get at, my experience does not match your's so it's
false, that is what you are saying, if that is the case your not observant. Your knowledge is so lacking anyone that use firefox can tell that is firefox without I have to show you. smh
By the way here is uMatrix on the same firefox. smh
So that you would not do what you did to me to others
I now updated ublock on firefox, check last image:
 

Attachments

  • 4.PNG
    4.PNG
    235.1 KB · Views: 57
  • 1.PNG
    1.PNG
    528.4 KB · Views: 53
  • 3.PNG
    3.PNG
    477.2 KB · Views: 57
Last edited:

redsworn

Level 4
Verified
Nope not getting the pictures

View attachment 244339
There must be something overriding those stackpathcdn noop rules. If noop is applied properly the vertical bars on the left would look like this.
1594854696118.png

Green means nothing is blocked. Yellow means connections are partially blocked. Meanwhile you got both red which means everything is blocked.
Check the logger to see what's blocking them.
 

Terry Ganzi

Level 25
Verified
Followed you with no nooping still no pictures

View attachment 244342

That is what I'm trying to understand from your end. Why i feel the fault is on your end
is because I was using hard mode for a good while check my old posts and you will see
that I don't always encounter cnames in ublock I don't no why. Try saving certain settings to the cloud in ublock then reset ublock download the cloud setting and see what results you get.
Ah it may have to do with what filter lists you are using, that also plays a big part.
 
Last edited:

HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
That is what I'm trying to understand from your end. Why i feel the fault is on your end
is because I was using hard mode for a good while check my old posts and you will see
that I don't always encounter cnames in ublock I don't no why. Try saving certain settings to the cloud in ublock then reset ublock download the cloud setting and see what results you get.
Ah it may have to do with what filter lists you are using, that also plays a big part.

Using the below filter lists

It's ok after all only 1 site. Thanks a lot

1594855716182.png


1594855753138.png
 

Terry Ganzi

Level 25
Verified
I can't reproduce it with 2 separated Firefox instance (one portable and the other regular install). I also tried to install uMatrix on the portable one but still same result. I noticed two things from all your screenshots though. They're all missing the uncloaked CNAME. So in essence your FF behaves just like Chromium based browsers.
You also seems to be using beta/dev version of uBO. Maybe it's also a reason for the different behaviour on your end.

As I told you before you are not observant. I made this post near the bottom: uBlock Origin/Nano Adblocker - User Tips, Questions and Issues Thread
In it you will see once again that you are wrong.
 

HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
There must be something overriding those stackpathcdn noop rules. If noop is applied properly the vertical bars on the left would look like this.
View attachment 244343
Green means nothing is blocked. Yellow means connections are partially blocked. Meanwhile you got both red which means everything is blocked.
Check the logger to see what's blocking them.
The logs are as below. Can see anything blocking?

1594857570524.png


1594857644627.png


1594857719520.png


1594857778769.png
 

redsworn

Level 4
Verified

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 38
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Idk if there's any better solution but try to add the following exceptions to "My Rules".
Code:
@@||config-prod.choice.faktor.io/*/faktor.js$script,domain=omroepwest.nl
@@||cmp.choice.faktor.io/dist/*/cmp.bundle.js$script,domain=omroepwest.nl
@@||cw.choice.faktor.io/dist/*/index.html$subdocument,domain=omroepwest.nl

Make sure you've noop the necessary hostnames if you use medium/hard mode.
Thank you (y)
This way you don't have to use any allow rule.
Much better.
 

SeriousHoax

Level 32
Verified
For those using Firefox, what do you think of the points given in this and in other threads about filtering certain scripts in order to limit CPU usage?

The issue seems very specific for some sites that use futurecdn script. Other sites are fine. But a good point nonetheless.
 
Top