by 0x696C6961 on 12/2/24, 1:22 PM with 26 comments
by protoster on 12/2/24, 1:45 PM
by Ch00k on 12/2/24, 1:54 PM
by oriel on 12/2/24, 5:38 PM
I'm curious, for such a straight-forwarded added functionality, why you would:
1. add a very heavy editor framework (monaco) for a configuration page?
2. use actual javascript to check partial urls one at a time?
For 2. this would be better handled by a json or similar that just maps Firefox's approved url match patterns[1]? Using javascript adds potential execution vulnerabilities and possibly parsing complexity that isnt needed.
Also a word on partial urls. Given that many sites will use subdomains and redirects as a norm, expecting a site to be like "www.amazon.com" seems like it would generate a lot of excess code in order to maintain url targeting. This comes from working on a macOS plugin that did similar javascript injection based on url targeting (BeardedSpice[2]) and would have regular targeting errors, especially with more complex SPAs.
Either way, keep up the good work! Love to see projects like this attempt to improve the QoL around the browsing experience.
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
by konradkpl on 12/2/24, 1:45 PM
However, there is no possibility to adjust matching rules, so this script offers a bit more customization options.
by worble on 12/2/24, 1:48 PM
I've been using https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/containerise to handle this for me.
by vfclists on 12/2/24, 2:06 PM
Was all or part of the program written in another language and compiled to Javascript?
My Javascript is not the good but it looks that way to me, or perhaps was constructed from some table driven system.
by weberer on 12/2/24, 1:48 PM
by bluelightning2k on 12/2/24, 1:44 PM
by DemocracyFTW2 on 12/2/24, 3:27 PM
by mhx1138 on 12/2/24, 4:02 PM
by OutOfHere on 12/2/24, 2:27 PM
by M95D on 12/3/24, 12:42 PM