re-evaluate how syntax/software support is modeled

[collinbarrett]

This issue is to continue discussion from #493 with @hawkeye116477 , @DandelionSprout , and whoever else.

FilterLists is currently designed so that each FilterList is linked to a single Syntax. Each Syntax is supported by multiple Software.

However, we might need to expand the complexity of that model a bit more. Some ideas summarized below:

0. Keep on Keeping on, but Stricter:

Continue using the current model, but be very strict about saying that a Software supports a Syntax. The example that came up is that we think AdGuard supports nearly all of uBlock Origin Static, however it does not support Scriptlet Injection. In this case, we would say that AdGuard does not support uBlock Origin Static. Only Software that can support any kind of rule defined in a Syntax should be linked to that Syntax.

1. Most Precise:

The most precise solution would be to drop the Syntax model altogether in favor of each FilterList having its own set of Software that is known to support it. That incurs a lot of data maintenance overhead, and I am really hoping to keep Syntax around in some form to lighten the load of having to maintain all those individual incompatibilities.

2. Boolean Partial Syntax Support:

I proposed adding a boolean flag to each SoftwareSyntax that represents if the Syntax is fully supported by the Software (all rules except comments/metadata should be applied by the Software) or only partially supported (some of the rules are ignored by the Software, while some are applied). We could then indicate in the UI somehow whether the Software fully or partially supports the FilterList.

3. More Granular Syntaxes:

Another option could be to chop a Syntax like uBlock Origin Static into multiple Syntaxes. So, instead of having uBlock Origin Static, we would instead have: uBlock Origin Static Network Filtering, uBlock Origin Static Extended Filtering, uBlock Origin Scriptlet Injection, ... This solution would also require changing the relationship from a FilterList to a Syntax from one-to-many to many-to-many so that each FilterList can implement multiple Syntaxes.

Surfacing software support is one of the primary pieces of value that FilterLists provides, in my view, so getting this right is pretty key. Please provide your further thoughts/suggestions.

[collinbarrett]

Related to #492

[DandelionSprout]

I'm in favour of options №2 (Boolean) and №3 (Granularity), whichever one you two decide upon.

№1 (Most Precise) would in my eyes be a disaster in the making, since not only would I (and other pull makers) have to keep track on dozens of software tools for each list, leading to the time it takes me to put together a mass-addition pull being roughly doubled (if not tripled due to concentration exhaustion), but it also wouldn't properly account for new software tools that are occasionally discovered (Recent examples of which are FireHOL and Samsung Knox).

[collinbarrett]

Thanks, @DandelionSprout . I tend to agree with you. I also just added another option, Keep on Keeping on, but Stricter, to the OP.

[DandelionSprout]

I'm not in favour of №0 (Keeping on but stricter), as it underestimates the syntax crossover potential that stems from uBO, Nano and AdGuard occasionally co-operating with each other to create industry standards. Sure, each of them have their own quirks, which can on rare occasions cause problems, but there's several discussion threads on record out there where they set out to agree on common standards (a notable instance of this being AdguardTeam/AdguardBrowserExtension#917).

It's better than №1, but my money remains on either №2 or №3.

[collinbarrett]

Option 3 could be partially automated away at some point, which would be cool. In the same vein as #202 , we could have FilterLists' SnapshotService analyze rules in lists, create a collection of sub/granular-Syntaxes that the list currently represents based on string patterns, and then update the Software support automatically. It wouldn't be easy to implement, and there may be corners (a certain pattern meaning different things in two different Syntaxes, for example) but could be a useful feature.

The biggest change Option 3 would entail now would be updating the model so that each list can support many Syntaxes (adding a FilterListSyntax many-to-many model). Then, as we go, we could expand the Syntax dataset with more granular Syntaxes.

[hawkeye116477]

I think that option 3 is probably the best, but I also think that uBlock Origin Static Network Filtering, uBlock Origin Static Extended Filtering, uBlock Origin Scriptlet Injection isn't need, should suffice uBlock Origin Static (compatible with AdGuard) and uBlock Origin Static (not compatible with AdGuard), cuz filterlists can have all three and still be compatible. Hovewer there are some exceptions when filters combined with for example uBO scriptlet inject can cause problems for AdGuard or if list only uses scriptlet injection. Hovewer I see that most filters (which are on filterlists) are rather not created specifically for AdGuard, but only uBO compatibility is certain. So maybe „default" should be uBlock Origin Static (not compatible with AdGuard) and if it's compatible for AdGuard, then author of filterlists should make PR and change that to uBlock Origin Static (compatible with AdGuard).

[collinbarrett]

Would be curious if @gorhill or @ameshkov had any suggestions. If not, totally fine.

[ameshkov]

I also think that options 2 and 3 are better than the other two.

Option 3, however, requires quite a bit of work and cannot be done in a short time. At the same time, it will be really handy to filters maintainers and us developers, but it might be overly complicated and confusing for regular users.

Anyway, if you decide to proceed with option 3, please let me know, I'll find some time to help.

[collinbarrett]

I am in the process of making some data model changes to allow support for option 3 as well as a few other additional bits of data. @DandelionSprout , please hold off for a few days at least before making any data PRs as I'm manipulating the json. I'll ping you back here when the json has stabilized.

I'm also really pushing hard to get a solution for #372 going "soon".