ABP new filter not working on uBO

[kaypoush]

Hello,

https://adblockplus.org/development-builds/new-syntax-for-advanced-element-hiding-rules

New filter -abp-has doesn't work on uBO.
`
Test :

https://yggtorrent.com/torrent/filmvid%C3%A9o/s%C3%A9rie-tv/23187-game+of+thrones+s07e01+vostfr+1080p+web+h264-extreme+mkv

Filter :

yggtorrent.com#?#TR > TD > TABLE > TBODY > TR:-abp-has(A[href$="/go_vpn"])

Source :

https://forums.lanik.us/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=37526

Config :

Chrome + uBO + Default (+ Liste FR)

Thanks.

[gorhill]

Should be trivial to fix at first glance.

Note: I tried the filter in ABP. On my side, it works if refreshing the already loaded test page, however it does not work if opening in a new tab.

[mapx-]

I filed a new ticket
https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/5425#ticket

[gorhill]

@mapx- Looks like a timing issue: if you just click refresh button, it works; If you shift-click refresh button (thus bypassing the browser cache), it doesn't work.

[mapx-]

Yes, ..sometimes even F5 still leave the ad unhidden.

[kasper93]

I've already sent pull request with support for -abp-has() filters 26 days ago. #2755

[gorhill]

Fixed with 8559669.

Additionally, compatibility with Adguard's :contains() has been added.

[gorhill]

I want to do more work on this.

Specifically, I want uBO to normalize the raw filter so that it can properly handle duplicates such as:

facebook.com##div[id^="hyperfeed_story_id_"]:has(a:has-text(Chartered))

And

facebook.com#?#div[id^="hyperfeed_story_id_"]:-abp-has(a:-abp-contains(Chartered))

Which essentially accomplishes the same thing.

uBO will normalize procedural filters to properly discard duplicates -- especially given how procedural cosmetic filters are more CPU intensive. For instance, the above will be normalized to:

facebook.com##div[id^="hyperfeed_story_id_"]:if(a:has-text(Chartered))

[joey04]

@gorhill have a question about these new changes.

tvguide.com##.listings-tab-link.active:matches-css-after(opacity: 1)

I see atomized as:

Is the atomized /1/ by design? It still works fine, but I don't recall seeing it that way in the Logger before. (This is the only procedural rule I have.)

[gwarser]

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Procedural-cosmetic-filters#subjectmatches-cssarg

/1/ - this is regular expression

[joey04]

Thanks for the info, gwarser.

But I can confirm it has indeed changed. I forgot earlier I have GChrome with stock uBO rev 1.14.8. This is what my rule compiles to there:

So why the change to regex /1/ in the 1.14.11 beta?

[gwarser]

Apparently part of normalization

[gorhill]

Just use ##img.

[mapx-]

yes, it works with / without ?

[mapx-]

uBo supports ABP and its own syntax, ABP ...doesn't

[mapx-]

yes and uBo is supporting it.

[mapx-]

ABP doesn't support uBo implementation.

[mapx-]

uBo supports the ABP syntax for :-abp-has / :-abp-contains with / without ?
ABP does not support :has / :has-text (uBo standard)

Just do your tests and report back if you have real doubts

[mapx-]

Provide all the info: page link, what do you want to hide, eventually upload a screenshot indicating what do you want to hide, used filter, browser version

[gorhill]

Isn't ABP's syntax #?#?

My understanding was that this syntax was to be used only for procedural filters. I just tried it with ABP, and you are right, example.com#?#img works. So now I have no idea ABP went with #?#if it can be used as a replacement of ##. I am pretty sure however that no filter list maintainer is going to use #?#img instead of ##img. Maybe the fix is required on ABP 's side? I can't read their mind, I don't know why they went with #?#.

[gorhill]

How to chain :nth-of-type(2) and :has-text()?
These filters doesn't work perfect yet.

Can you open a new issue about this? I used regexes internally to parse procedural filters and I might have to move on parsing in a more reliable way without having to rely on regexes.

[Halibut80]

@gorhil, I have a long-standing question, but I'm not sure, this is by design or I should also open issue about this:
These sort of filters is also does not work:

example.com##div:if(> div:has-text(Some)) + div
example.com##div:if(> div:has-text(Some)) ~ div
example.com##div:has(> div) + div

etc.

[gorhill]

@Halibut80 Not supported. Open an issue if you wish, though I would work on this if I become convinced there is a real actual need in the wild rather than just a nice-to-have one.

[Halibut80]

Well, i have some real case for this sort of rules, but they only for... hm, for personal easement (ughm, sorry, I don't have words to clear explain my phrase (my English is very bad)), and they also can be done with xpath, but last example looks like valid css selector and should work, or I'm wrong?

[gorhill]

The parser for procedural cosmetic filters does not expect trailing stuff past the last parenthesis, so that fails as well even if it's supposed to be a valid CSS4 selector. Really I just went with the simpler implementation at first for what was needed as per what was seen in the wild at the time.

[Halibut80]

Ok, thank you. This is a very minor problem, and can be done in a different way, so I will not open a new bug and waste your time.

[gorhill]

subscriptions are written for ABP, so you have to support ABP syntax

No filter list maintainers will use #?# for a normal filter. The fact that it works is incidental. I don't have to support something which is never meant to be used this way.

[okiehsch]

spielaffe.de#?##advertising_billboard
spielaffe.de#?##app_advertising_skyscraper_right
kino.de#?#.banner

part of EasyListGermany

[okiehsch]

cnet.com#?#.ad-leader-top
cnet.com#?#.ad-mpu-plus-bottom
cnet.com#?#.ad-mpu-plus-middle
cnet.com#?#.ad-mpu-plus-top
cnet.com#?#.ad-nav-ad
cnet.com#?#.ad-replay-wide-top

part of EasyList

[okiehsch]

The syntax is supported for advanced selectors, I don`t know why EasyList started to use it for "normal"
filters.

[gorhill]

Wait, these are properly handled in uBO, I just stepped into the code. I just tried #?#img again and it worked fine. So no issue in the end.

[okiehsch]

@gorhill

seems to work anyway.
Edit: Sorry, missed your comment.

[gorhill]

My mistake, I should have demanded reproducible steps. I can't answer if I can't reproduce exactly what you tried.

[mapx-]

well, I tested this morning (and works with / without ?) and already answered to the user and asked a real test example :)
#2793 (comment)

[okiehsch]

Sorry, I missed that.

[mapx-]

@ololoe if your filter is exactly #?#img it does not work because in that syntax ABP expects to have non-generic filters.

You need example.com#?#img

[mapx-]

github.com#?#img tested on my github profile, is working fine hiding my avatar (chrome)

working in FF 57 too

[mapx-]

yes, see above, working in FF 57 too + uBo (last dev build)

[okiehsch]

#?#img will not work if you enter it in uBO's interactive element picker mode.
Why should it? If you are using uBO why would you use #?#.

[okiehsch]

Because it is an Adblock/Plus specific filter, I still don't know why you would use #?# instead of ## if you are trying to create a filter with uBlock Origins element picker.
I think it is sufficient for uBO to properly handle these Adblock/Plus specific filters if you add them to your filter list.

[okiehsch]

Add github.com#?#img to your filter list, click apply and then reload this page.

[mapx-]

@ololoe I already answered you twice. Yes, it works, add the filter in "my filters".

[gorhill]

you even don't accept as a bug?

Right, I don't accept as a bug, because the workaround is: don't use ? in the element picker, you don't have to.