Static filter syntax to only match when inline scripts are disabled

[jimbobmcgee]

I came to UBO from NSS+ABP a number of months ago.

One of the significant differences I noticed after this transition was that UBO would not show the content of HTML <noscript> elements when it was blocking inline scripts. NSS elects to show the contents of <noscript> tags where JS has been disabled, and hides these when it is enabled.

I believe I saw a closed issue at the time, stating that getting UBO to show <noscript> contents was either impossible or undesirable, but I can't find it now.

To compensate, I wrote myself a custom scriptlet which locates all the <noscript> elements in a page, writes their innerText to that of a new HTMLTemplateElement and replaces the <noscript> with the content of the template. It has been more useful for me than not (e.g. for showing reminders or helper buttons when JS is disabled); in case it is at all useful for you, I have included it below.

I currently apply this scriptlet with a very broad-brush custom *##+js(reinject-noscript) static filter, which works as expected on every page I visit.

This, of course, now has the opposite effect – when inline scripts are enabled in UBO, the contents of any <noscript> are still shown. There are some websites whose <noscripts> entirely cover the page content, or some other such annoyance, so I've taken to excluding them from my static filter, e.g. *,~youtube.com,~youtube-nocookie.com,~accounts.google.com,~paypal.com##+js(reinject-noscript)

I would much rather change the targeting so that UBO only applies the scriptlet when inline scripts are blocked.

Is there / could there be any syntax which could be used in a static filter, which limits the targeting to only when UBO is blocking inline scripts?

Perhaps

• a new dollar-syntax that could apply, like *,$no-inline-scripts##+js(reinject-noscript)? (not sure of exact form; static syntax is not my strong suit!)
• I don't think it would be a !#if, because I think those occur too early in the sequence (but happy to be proved wrong)
• alternative approaches are also welcome...

Expand for custom scriptlet, as discussed...

/// reinject-noscript.js
(function reinjectNoscriptElementContent() {
  console.log('ubo.js: reinject-noscript: init');
  const fn = function() {
    console.log('ubo.js: reinject-noscript: running');
    try {
      var noscripts = document.getElementsByTagName('noscript') || [];
      for (var i = noscripts.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
        if (noscripts[i] !== undefined && noscripts[i] !== null) {
          var tpl = document.createElement('template');
          tpl.innerHTML = "<!-- ubo.js: reinject-noscript: start -->\n"
                        + noscripts[i].innerText
                        + "\n<!-- ubo.js: reinject-noscript: end -->";
          noscripts[i].parentNode.replaceChild(tpl.content, noscripts[i]);
        }
        else {
          console.log('ubo.js: reinject-noscript: weird = noscripts[' + i + 
                      '] not defined');
        }
      }
    }
    catch (e) {
      console.log('ubo.js: reinject-noscript: error = ' + e);
    }
  };
  if (document.readyState !== "complete") {
    document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", fn);
  }
  else fn();
})();

[stephenhawk8054]

uBO should show the content of noscript if you select to wholly disable javascript: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-scripting

Can you give an example link where it doesn't work?

[garry-ut99]

jimbobmcgee : I believe I saw a closed issue at the time, stating that getting UBO to show <noscript> contents was either impossible or undesirable, but I can't find it now.

Maybe one of the following:

• uBlock Origin doesn’t honor noscript tags when blocking JS gorhill/uBlock#308
• Unexpected result when blocking Javascript gorhill/uBlock#1642
• Add a scriptlet to honor noscript tag #2437
• Add a scriptlet to set any of data attribute src of img #2347

[jimbobmcgee]

@garry-ut99; Thanks -- that first one was indeed the one I vaguely remembered reading. I was clearly looking in the wrong repo.

---

@stephenhawk8054; I'm sure wholly disabling works fine, but selective disabling is more what I am used to.

As it stands, for me, the workflow for running FF with javascript.enabled=false or UBO with no-scripting: * true is a bit too painful. I prefer to run UBO with * * 1p-script block * * 3p-frame block * * 3p-script block * * inline-script block, because selecting from the popup matrix is far closer to the NSS approach that I came from.

My opinion (and solely an opinion, certainly not a suggestion or demand), is that the enabled state of a site's inline scripts should inversely affect the visible state of its <noscript> tags. I have an approach that gets me 99% of the way to that preference, and am interested to see if there is anything I have missed that would get me the rest of the way.

My thought was that there it might be possible to have static filter syntax that reacted to UBO's state, not just the resource. Since then, another thought was that a JS object might be made available to scriptlets (via scriptletGlobals...?), which contained this state. Either of these might already exist, or might be useful enough to others to be worth implementing. If feasible and desirable, I am open to attempting contributing it, myself.

[stephenhawk8054]

So you want to allow some scripts to run while still want noscript tag to be applied?

[jimbobmcgee]

Yes, usually. UBO is a valuable front line of defence for me, but I'm happy enough to enable scripts on a case-by-case basis and also happy enough to enable some distributed functions (e.g. payment gateways) across all sites, so running with JS disabled full-time is overkill.

But not seeing the content of <noscript> tags when I am running in my "default" state is causing me to miss certain things, and seeing them when running in my "relaxed" state is also causing me to make mistakes.

I'm now wondering if my preferences would be met by running no-scripting * true; * * inline-script noop; * * 1p-script block; * * 3p-script; * * 3p-frame block as my "default", and toggling to "relaxed" via the </> button. i.e. nothing is allowed to run until I enable via </>, and then I'd have still control over secondary scripts.

I think it's just that my eye is drawn to the matrix on the left of the popup, and I'm missing the buttons on the right.

[stephenhawk8054]

Then it's not what the noscript tag is meant for. You can use the no-scripting toggle in the popup panel to unblock the scripts while still blocking other scripts, but the noscript tag will not be used any more, because you are signaling the website you are using scripts.

gorhill answered here: #3427 (comment)

[gorhill]

Declined.