Integration mode-only Assistant browser extension

[Boo Berry]

This is something I've been thinking about posting for awhile now, having attempted to use the browser extensions alongside Adguard for Windows and Adguard for Mac in integration mode and having to revert back to using just the Assistant.

There's multiple issues one can run into when using integration mode. One is the browser extensions will filter websites (unless you've disabled all available filters) you've whitelisted. Another one was mentioned in another topic today; the extension will also filter websites where you have the option to disable filtering on websites that use EV certificates and on banking websites added to the HTTPS exceptions. Another issue I've noticed is, when you create rules using the Adblocker extension as a replacement for the Assistant, it keeps rules created in the extension's user filter, instead of just passing them to the main program itself.

My request is this; spin off integration mode and create an Adguard Assistant extension that's not userscript-based, which functions ONLY as the Assistant (meaning there's no ad blocking capabilities within the extension - it can only help create rules, which passes to Adguard for Windows/Mac, stuff like that). It shouldn't save created filters in a user filter of it's own (it shouldn't have one in the first place). It's purpose would be to function as the Assistant without any ad blocking capabilities of its own.

To me, this would be the perfect compromise and allow me to use the Assistant as a browser extension, and not as a userscript-based Assistant.

Thoughts?

 

[nadav]

+1

 

[avatar]

I must admit you've got a point.

I agree, that currently add-on behavior is too independent, it is more like a "situational" integration
Instead it should work completely differently when "big brother" is detected & connected.

Ideally, I'd like this improved integration mode to be incorporated into the main browser extension, though.

 

[Boo Berry]

The problem I'd see raised is, the ad blocking capabilities of the extension would still be there. Perhaps an option to completely disable all ad blocking capabilities of the extension in favor of integration mode to be used would be the proper compromise?

Something like Adguard adblocker <.> Adguard integration mode type of switch which changes/hides/shows different options once switched?

 

[vasily_bagirov]

My two cents: I don't think the compromise you suggested is a good solution. If you want to use the extension as an adblocker, why do even you run Adguard for Windows then?

 

[Boo Berry]

If you want to use the extension as an adblocker, why do even you run Adguard for Windows then?

My point is the reverse, I don't want the extension to run as an adblocker at all, since it seems to conflict with Adguard for Windows in integration mode during certain instances.

 

[vasily_bagirov]

My point is the reverse, I don't want the extension to run as an adblocker at all since it seems to conflict with Adguard for Windows in integration mode during certain instances.

So I don't see why you would like to implement a switch then? I think we should make it strictly a shell where you can access some of the 'big' Adguard options from (when in integration mode). So, basically, the same as you suggest but without any confusing switches.

Only my opinion though

 

[avatar]

The problem I'd see raised is, the ad blocking capabilities of the extension would still be there. Perhaps an option to completely disable all ad blocking capabilities of the extension in favor of integration mode to be used would be the proper compromise?

I don't think we should have a compromise here.

You're right, there is no need in using ad blocking capabilities when desktop program is in use.
And that's exactly what I want to be done by us.

 

[Boo Berry]

@avatar

I just tested the latest 2.6.1 beta in integration mode with Adguard for Windows 6.2, and I've got to say it's improved greatly! It doesn't seem to be dropping out of integration mode (and trying to filter websites itself) when visiting whitelisted sites for example. I've yet to test sites with EV certificates (with HTTPS filtering disabled on those sites) but I suspect it'll stay in integration mode. Having the browser extensions filter on websites where the user has HTTPS filtering disabled (and/or EV certificate sites not filtered) might be appealing for some users who want to see the original certificates on HTTPS sites.

Anyways, it seems to be working good. However...

> Another issue I've noticed is, when you create rules using the Adblocker extension as a replacement for the Assistant, it keeps rules created in the extension's user filter, instead of just passing them to the main program itself.

This is still a thing. At the very least the extensions shouldn't retain rules in its own user filter while integration mode is enabled (they could be cleared on exit of the browser, perhaps?).

Also in integration mode, the blocked ad counts aren't passed to the browser extensions, which I'm not sure is possible or not. Would be great if they were!

Glad to see Edge is getting semi-close to having integration mode support. Hopefully MS fixes that issue preventing it! Also hopefully Safari is able to support it too one day (though, I'm not holding my breath on this one).

 

[Boo Berry]

@avatar

Looks like the Firefox browser extension 2.6.1 beta is broken in the latest Firefox Nightly build - it loads a blank menu when right clicking on it. If I had to guess, it was broken by this change which also broke LastPass' menus in the latest Nightly builds.

P.S. Adguard Adblocker 2.6.1 is also listed as a Legacy extension in the latest Nightly as well!

@vasily_bagirov these two issues can probably be reported on Github (as separate issues).

 

[vasily_bagirov]

these two issues can probably be reported on Github (as separate issues).

I posted about it to the Extension Beta thread. As for the GitHub, I will report these issues later if needed.

 

[spinedoc777]

Please don't tie it into the assistant. The assistant is so haphazard and doesn't show up in many web sites, making it useless. Also integration mode isn't implemented in Edge yet (WHY??!??!) so it's useless for many of us.

 

[Boo Berry]

Integration mode isn't implemented for Edge or Safari because both browsers don't fully support what's needed in their extensions API to support integration mode (though Edge is getting close).

The proposal request is for a Assistant-only browser extension, not to be 'tied' into the existing Assistant userscript/extension, nor the Adguard Adblocker browser extensions - it'd be its own thing and would show on all websites regardless (since it'd be a browser extension).

I still think an Assistant-only browser extension is a good idea. Even the newest browser extension betas randomly drop out of integration mode, hence the need/desire for a Assistant-only browser extension.

 

[vasily_bagirov]

@Boo Berry but is it really needed? To me, it seems like a lot of (or at least some) work for a very small payoff.

 

[Boo Berry]

IMO, yes, it is needed. I can't use the current browser extensions as a replacement for the Assistant since it tends to drop out of integration mode (it got a little better with the current betas, but still happens) - I've tried multiple times to use it, but in the end I always go back to using the Assistant.

The only real way to find out for sure is to start a poll and find out how many others desire such a thing. I know I'm not the only one.

 

[vasily_bagirov]

I just don't get it, why not use the Assistant instead? What are the drawbacks?

 

[Boo Berry]

Well, I'll keep this list kinda short but; 1) there's some websites where the Assistant (even 4.0) still fails to appear due to whatever reason(s) - it's not feasible to say the Assistant will appear on ALL sites as there are sites it's whitelisted on. 2) I've noticed an issue (that's existed for a long, long time and is AFAIK well known) where when sometimes selecting elements you click on the element to block it but the click is registered as a site click and the page loads (and thus the Assistant goes away with it). It seems when using the browser extension as the Assistant, there's persistence and it's easier to block those type of elements. In the past I had to fall back to using a portable Firefox install with Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper to block those type of elements (and the click isn't registered). Placement would of made the list, but you guys rectified that in 4.0. 3) IMO, I honestly don't like the icon being present within webpages. Something about it slightly irks me (not sure why).

Integration mode still has issues, like I said it still "drops out" on certain websites (e.g. whitelisted) sites where the browser extension will begin filtering those sites. Using the full browser extension seems "too much" when trying to replace the Assistant with a browser extension, you know?

It does make sense to have an Assistant-only extension - AFAIK if Ad Muncher 5.0 ever came out, it was going to use a browser extension along with a desktop app to help block elements.

At the very least, a switch to FORCE integration mode at all times (meaning no ad blocking/dropping out ever, icon turning back to green, etc.) within the full browser extension may work too.

 

[vasily_bagirov]

I don't know. I agree with some of the points you make, but personally still think it is unnecessary. You still can file a feature request on GitHub to stimulate the discussion, at the very least.