search

ray-lothian / Block-Site

A browser extension to block website access using hostname matching
https://add0n.com/block-site.html
Mozilla Public License 2.0
223 stars 40 forks source link

Please increase the filter amount limit #88

Open GreatestFool opened 2 years ago

GreatestFool commented 2 years ago

Only today did it start complaining that I have too many filters, although there are 500, there has been no issues with blocking up to this point. If there is a reason for this change, it'd be nice to know why exactly, but preferably this change can be rolled back or changed to accommodate larger filter lists.

ray-lothian commented 2 years ago

Can you share the preferences in JSON format?

ray-lothian commented 2 years ago

I need the list to test the performance. The feature releases will use declarativeNetRequest on Firefox and there is a limit here; https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/#property-MAX_NUMBER_OF_REGEX_RULES

GreatestFool commented 2 years ago

If you're worried about performance and don't really have time to test extensively or to a degree that you'd prefer, being able to arbitrarily set the MAX_NUMBER_OF_REGEX_RULES in the settings would be nice. Leaving it between a range of 1 to 5000 with a reasonable default is okay, but it'd be nice to have a value to allow infinite. A small warning or similar next to the setting or when exceeding a recommended value can help deter people who don't actually need that many from enabling it.

Preferences The settings are nothing special. I've removed the blocked sites to keep the file small, because they aren't really necessary here, when it's just a lot of regular blocking. I've removed the GUID too for this upload, even though it's not necessary, in case you're wondering why it is missing. ```json { "blocked": [], "close": 0, "contextmenu-frame": false, "contextmenu-pause": false, "contextmenu-resume": true, "contextmenu-top": false, "crate": 4, "css": "", "guid": "", "initialBlock": true, "last-update": 1658852887671, "managed.storage.overwrite.on.start": false, "map": {}, "message": "", "no-password-on-add": true, "redirect": "https://i.redd.it/1wbz4b15vcd31.jpg", "reverse": false, "schedule": { "times": {} }, "schedule-offset": 0, "schedules": {}, "sha256": "", "timeout": 60, "title": true, "wrong": 1 } ```
GreatestFool commented 12 months ago

I'm bumping this issue, I have not heard back regarding this. It'd still be preferable to have an arbitrarily set limit, with a warning, or no limit at all and simply warning the user when they exceed a certain amount instead. There is no real performance reason to avoid this, aside from taking the easy way out. A 100 individual filters should make no difference compared to a regex that checks 100 domains and/or urls on certain domains.

Over time users will collect lists that exceed your limit, simply because at a time-scale of years with blocking a site once-in-a-while will grow larger than one otherwise expects.

Please look over this issue again and consider adding functionality for user-set limits.

e: Just a small edit to point something out. Even if you ignore the performance off 100 individual rules vs 100 different ORs in a regex (or in my case, 628), there's the ease-of-use to consider. It's vastly easier to eyeball a list of individual rules versus a (in my case) 7636 character long string.

e2: Just noticed something amusing, which is also another example of the issue of merging rules past a certain point. The string in the browser settings UI is not truncated, and thus leave you having to scroll to the right for however long your string is.