search

LennyFox / Blocklists

My personal blocklist
3 stars 0 forks source link

Long and corrupt YouTube site loading #1

Closed beerisgood closed 4 years ago

beerisgood commented 4 years ago

With your filter, YouTube break and need a long time with higher performance loose then normally.

Here a screenshot: youtube

LennyFox commented 4 years ago

When I try youtube, everything works fine. Can you provide the link which does not play?

beerisgood commented 4 years ago

The link was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39NXEzDJyE

It play after a long time but YouTube get freezed for a while and nothing happens. Without the filter, the video start immediately without freeze

LennyFox commented 4 years ago

Thanks,

Had to lower the fences, but adblocking should not cause website breakage. I checked and it seems okay, Could you check whether all works as expected?

beerisgood commented 4 years ago

I will test it if I'm back at home (Friday)

LennyFox commented 4 years ago

OK, thx

Yuki2718 commented 4 years ago

Haven't tested with your rules, but youtube.com/api/stats/watchtime?$image is whitelisted on EasyPrivacy. tho I block this and don't see an issue as long as not logged in. Also ||youtube.com/youtubei/ might cause trouble tho I don't see an issue by blocking ||youtube.com^*/log_event? (||youtube.com/youtubei/ blocks bit more)

beerisgood commented 4 years ago

@LennyFox i remove your list, then re-add it but this time i don't click "mark this as trusted filter" in AdGuard. No more problems .

But with this setting enabled, the problem come is back again. Info about trusted filters: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/FiltersRegistry#trust-levels

@Alex-302

Yuki2718 commented 4 years ago

None of his filters requires high trust-level. Sorry, I haven't looked MyBookMraks. This filter requires high trust.

LennyFox commented 4 years ago

This video plays without any problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39NXEzDJyE

I can't replay this issue, so I am closing it

Alex-302 commented 4 years ago

image these rules potentially can slowdown the site on the old PC(also better use #?# for extended CSS rules)

beerisgood commented 4 years ago

Just a info: my PC is a AMD Ryzen 5-2600 with SSD, 16GB DDR4 RAM and Radeon RX 5700 so i wouldn't call that a old or weak PC.

Alex-302 commented 4 years ago

@beerisgood not old PC, but in any case these rules are slow(JS with regexp).

Yuki2718 commented 4 years ago

Computational complexity helps to understand why regex is bad. The complexity of matching X regex rules to a n-length string is roughly O(Xn) scale (it depends) while good X rules at most O(n), this means adding regex rules proportionally adds computational cost while good rules don't - thus, as a very old ABP post stated, 1 regex rule is worse than 20 normal rules - no optimization can solve this fundamental difference. For the same reason, ##.ad should be preferred than ##[class^=ad] or ##[class$=ad] and these two preferred than `##[class=ad]if they all work. Also standard selector should be preferred than extended CSS, and:has()than:contains()`. But another thing to remember is ideally a cosmetic rule should cover all targets AND ONLY them - I mean, if something is hidden by another rule, better to avoid double-hide it by carefully choosing the selector. That said, it's okay to add a bit more specification to avoid potential FP as websites changes too often - the most troublesome part for any filter maintainer (adding a rule is easy, removing obsolete one is not).

EDIT: corrected the link