Issue 303 - Don't load element hiding rules

Issue 303 - Don't load element hiding rules

[Felix Dahlke, 2014-10-01 15:34:12]

Huge hack, but I guess it's our best bet for now.

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/4980445527670784/diff/5629499534213120/src/...
File src/org/adblockplus/android/AndroidWebRequest.java (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/4980445527670784/diff/5629499534213120/src/...
src/org/adblockplus/android/AndroidWebRequest.java:64: if (line.indexOf('#') ==
-1)
This is quite problematic IMO, since we're not only fetching filter lists here.
The comment should also point this out.

Anyway, I'd feel more comfortable with something like `line.indexOf('##') != 0`
here, to reduce the chance of false positives.

We might also want to look at the extension of the requested file - are filter
lists always ".txt"? I think so.

[René Jeschke, 2014-10-01 15:37:47]

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/4980445527670784/diff/5629499534213120/src/...
File src/org/adblockplus/android/AndroidWebRequest.java (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/4980445527670784/diff/5629499534213120/src/...
src/org/adblockplus/android/AndroidWebRequest.java:64: if (line.indexOf('#') ==
-1)
On 2014/10/01 15:34:12, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> This is quite problematic IMO, since we're not only fetching filter lists
here.
> The comment should also point this out.
> 
> Anyway, I'd feel more comfortable with something like `line.indexOf('##') !=
0`
> here, to reduce the chance of false positives.
> 
> We might also want to look at the extension of the requested file - are filter
> lists always ".txt"? I think so.

1. I can check for .txt files, but I don't know if all filter lists have .txt as
extension.

2. What about elemhide rules like:
androidandme.com###ANDROIDANDME_ARTICLE_AD
We won't get them with "index != 0".

[Wladimir Palant, 2014-10-01 16:30:16]

This is really a horrible hack. How about changing libadblockplus instead,
adding some flag (maybe to AppInfo) to indicate that element hiding isn't
supported? libadblockplus can simply remove element hiding filters whenever a
subscription is updated.

[Felix Dahlke, 2014-10-01 19:13:17]

On 2014/10/01 16:30:16, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> This is really a horrible hack. How about changing libadblockplus instead,
> adding some flag (maybe to AppInfo) to indicate that element hiding isn't
> supported? libadblockplus can simply remove element hiding filters whenever a
> subscription is updated.

Hm, true. I thought this would most likely require a Core change, but we can
indeed do this in libadblockplus and it's not too hard.

I was leaning towards going with this hack since I _really_ want this in 1.3.
But yeah, the clean solution is hardly more work actually. Filed an issue for
this: https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/1460

OK by you René?

[René Jeschke, 2014-10-01 20:26:50]

On 2014/10/01 19:13:17, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> On 2014/10/01 16:30:16, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> > This is really a horrible hack. How about changing libadblockplus instead,
> > adding some flag (maybe to AppInfo) to indicate that element hiding isn't
> > supported? libadblockplus can simply remove element hiding filters whenever
a
> > subscription is updated.
> 
> Hm, true. I thought this would most likely require a Core change, but we can
> indeed do this in libadblockplus and it's not too hard.
> 
> I was leaning towards going with this hack since I _really_ want this in 1.3.
> But yeah, the clean solution is hardly more work actually. Filed an issue for
> this: https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/1460
> 
> OK by you René?

Yeah, fine with me, and I second Felix' 2. solution (not including this in
AppInfo).

I will need to have a talk to you (Felix) tomorrow on IRC for implementation
notes if this is Ok with you.