Userscripts.org

Right, it is very overdue, and in essence it is a simple feature to implement. But getting it right the first time is what I am all about, so I want some thoughts from you guys about the end result. I got the following questions, and my (current) answers:

• Where do we show the updates?

  • At present, I think we should treat Userscripts with the same priority as Add-ons, and show them in the Add-ons update tab.

• What version number do we compare to, and fallbacks?

  • I think in this order: .meta.js and @uso:version, @version diff, lastly a simple script diff
• Update frequency
  • I think whatever Mozilla currently uses would be ideal. I will have a look at their add-on update implementation as part of the process.
• Security?
  • I think, like Firefox, that we should only update from https URI's
  • Disabled by default?

Thoughts and opinions? Things I have missed?

1. It'd be cool to show updates that way. Also a button to install all updates without requiring interaction, as in add-ons updates. Each script could have an option to check updates or not(default probably not).

2. I think uso:version is ok, maybe uso:hash if something fails, though I'm not sure uso:hash works as I suppose. I once considered monitoring scripts installed outside of Userscripts.org in my updater, could be an use for diff. But I'm not sure about the implications.

3. An option to customize the update interval, since some users have tons of scripts installed, and some scripts are modified frequently.

Clicking Tools > Add-ons there's Themes, Plugins, there could be one for Userscripts. Probably the same content of current script manager, or maybe modified to fit the style of the others. This extra location for the script manager wouldn't be absolutely necessary, but it could make sense for new users seeing them in that context of add-ons, plugins, etc...

Tim Smart wrote:
But getting it right the first time is what I am all about, so I want some thoughts from you guys about the end result.

I don't know what is wrong with you right now, but you really need to focus more on your issues rather than someone elses like upstreams. Your deletion of support for USO Updater is noted by the deletion of your guide. Your lack of finishing any proposed API is also noted like the GM_parser.

I hope your venture pans out and I'll be there along with others to pick up the pieces as usual... you have potential but absolutely no initiative and a serious lack of knowledge when it comes to Security... hopefully you'll improve as time goes by and leave the the ego and subtle hostilities behind. This message comes from my entire team here and is put as nicely as we can say it. :)

Tim Smart wrote in a pm:
I was going to reply in the topic, quote me if you want, but I did say previously conversations with you go off topic fast.

About the GM_parse API… Since when did I stop working on that? I have been playing with it the last few days. If you want to chat about that, for sure.

USO Updater was finished a long time ago, you probably mean the documentation was never finished? I deleted the guide because it was irrelevant and out-dated, so USO Updater is now a documentation-less updater, apart from annotated source code on GitHub.

And now you are doing what you accuse many other people of doing, ‘de-railing’ a topic. Seriously, me (and quite a few others I talk to here, and from other open source projects) don’t like your ‘karma’.

I do Greasemonkey for fun, I leave serious stuff for my day job. I write code in my spare time for others to enjoy, and getting into massive arguments about stupid little things is definitely not a enjoyable way to do open source.

You are endangering the Userscript community in my honest opinion, if people come here and share code, and you start saying poking holes in their actions, you scare them away, and we lose contributors. Don’t scare people, mentor them. You say you pick up pieces, but you also didn’t mention that you like to create them.

Anyway, you can post quote this in the topic and de-rail it further if you want, but personal stuff should be kept out of open forums.

Like I said before in this post, I wish you luck with your endeavors as you have potential... but you are too opininated, inexperienced and grossly negligent in some of your ideas. You've decided to make yourself an outcast to the N.O.T. and that is unfortunate and these things need to be made public. You are blocked from pm's as your intentions are questionable.

lazyttrick wrote:
1. It'd be cool to show updates that way. Also a button to install all updates without requiring interaction, as in add-ons updates. Each script could have an option to check updates or not(default probably not).

Yeah, I guess the cleaner it integrates into the Addons dialog the better, will have to look into the implementation Mozilla uses for add-ons, and see if they expose an API for the update system.

1. I think uso:version is ok, maybe uso:hash if something fails, though I'm not sure uso:hash works as I suppose. I once considered monitoring scripts installed outside of Userscripts.org in my updater, could be an use for diff. But I'm not sure about the implications.

Well the reason we need fallbacks for uso:version, is due to some Userscripts not being hosted here on USO. So I guess this is where the most thought is needed, to ensure we can enable updater support for as many different scenarios as possible.

1. An option to customize the update interval, since some users have tons of scripts installed, and some scripts are modified frequently.

Nice! As long as decent thresholds are set, this would be pretty cool. Otherwise we can settle on a default limit later on.

Clicking Tools > Add-ons there's Themes, Plugins, there could be one for Userscripts. Probably the same content of current script manager, or maybe modified to fit the style of the others.

Anthony (Greasemonkey developer) has already implemented a User Scripts tab for the Addons dialog, so that is one less thing to worry about :)

Tim Smart wrote:
Anothony... has already implemented a User Scripts tab for the Addons dialog

Marti wrote:
No he hasn't produced anything out of vaporware and you know this.

I was using it the other day, and it worked just fine. A few tweaks here and there, and we are cooking with gas.

Yeah sure, Anthony has his problems, so do you, so do I. I commend him for his work on the Addons tab, the necessary functionality is there.

Tim Smart wrote:
I was using it the other day, and it worked just fine.

Marti wrote:
I've been using it today and no it's not "fine".

OK, considering it wouldn't be in the scope of this topic, I have created a enhancement issue. Updater logic should plug into whatever is available.

Tim Smart wrote:
considering it wouldn't be in the scope of this topic, I have created a enhancement issue.

Tim Smart wrote:

Also a button to install all updates without requiring interaction, as in add-ons updates.

Tim Smart wrote:
Well the reason we need fallbacks for uso:version, is due to some Userscripts not being hosted here on USO.

Tim Smart wrote:

lazyttrick wrote:
3. An option to customize the update interval, since some users have tons of scripts installed, and some scripts are modified frequently.

Nice! As long as decent thresholds are set, this would be pretty cool. Otherwise we can settle on a default limit later on.

Tim Smart wrote:
Anthony (Greasemonkey developer) has already implemented a User Scripts tab for the Addons dialog, so that is one less thing to worry about :)

lazyttrick wrote:
(default probably not).

lazyttrick wrote:
3. An option to customize the update interval, since some users have tons of scripts installed, and some scripts are modified frequently.

sizzlemctwizzlewrote:
This scares me a little.

It would obviously have to have some sort of confirmation :p

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
I don't think update checking should occur for any scripts that are installed from a source outside of Userscripts.org.

Hmmm, it will be interesting to hear others opinions on this. I'm 50/50 for now, but supporting all scripts would be ideal.

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
Perhaps we can put a check for all updates option in the right-click monkey menu below Manage User Scripts, and then a check for update button for each individual script in the Manage Scripts dialog next to the Uninstall button.

The menu idea sounds good, except I'm not sure how the current UI would work for showing updates :/ I guess some pondering will need to be done if we decide to hook it up to the current UI.

Tim Smart wrote:
It would obviously have to have some sort of confirmation :p

Tim Smart wrote:
Hmmm, it will be interesting to hear others opinions on this

Tim Smart wrote:
I'm not sure how the current UI would work for showing updates

Tim Smart wrote:
It would obviously have to have some sort of confirmation :p

Tim Smart wrote:
but supporting all scripts would be ideal.

Tim Smart wrote:
except I'm not sure how the current UI would work for showing updates

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
If the script asks me if I'd like to install all updates

Ah! I probably didn't speak my mind well enough. It would be similar to Firefox's add-on updates, where it lists all the possible updates, with a tick box on each one, letting the user decide whether they want it installed or not. Sound good?

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
I think something close to the way the prompt to install a JetPack is done.

/me re-installs Jetpack

Tim Smart wrote:
with a tick box on each one... Sound good?

So are you thinking of checking for all updates* on Firefox startup? Or periodically during the session? Or do you like my idea of checking for updates when a script is included?

*when I say "check for updates" I mean: check if a predetermined amount of time has passed since the last check of the remote script's version and if so then actually check the remote script's version.

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
checking for updates when a script is included?

Yeah I like that. So only when a script is 'executed'? That should make the implementation a bit cleaner also.

*sizzlemctwizzle's idea at first seems interesting, but imagine you visit 10 sites in sequence, 5 of them with updates... It would be annoying to have random updates popping up here and there. Just check them all at once. In my experience the updater goes through meta.js really fast. There's no need to worry about that.

*regarding modified scripts(sizzlemctwizzle), just make individual update buttons per script... but keep 1 button for update all scripts in 1 click: http://i.imgur.com/UYAcG.png .
I think the "update all" button is an essential feature, but it requires update script option defaulting to "no" because of the Greasemonkey confirmation policy. If you set it to "yes", you're assuming the risks when clicking "update all".

*Regarding scripts outside USO, there's 2 cases:
1. Script listed in USO but hosted outside: I never dealed with it, so I don't know how it works.
2. Script not listed in USO, hosted outside: in this case the developer could change the filename in future versions, so I think it's probably not worth to keep track.

lazyttrick wrote:
*sizzlemctwizzle's idea at first seems interesting, but imagine you visit 10 sites in sequence, 5 of them with updates... It would be annoying to have random updates popping up here and there. Just check them all at once.

Marti wrote:
In all wisdom it would be better to offer both types that any user would want...

When you have a lot of scripts installed it is over-whelming when an updater tells you a whole bunch have available updates. I'm talking big numbers here like 40 scripts that have updates. I've used lazyttrick's updater and this is the number one reason I don't use it currently. His updater even checks for updates of disabled scripts which is just stupid imo.

Perhaps we can keep track of when a script was last "executed" and keep a list with all the recently executed scripts at the top and those would be the ones we checked for updates together and prompted the user. Then we could leave the scripts that haven't been executed in a long time to be checked for updates at the moment they are actually executed. This would accomplish three goals:

1. The prompt that shows the list of scripts that have updates would be relevant to that user. So they'd actually care that there are updates.
2. Scripts that aren't used often would still get a chance to check for updates, when that user decides to use it.
3. lazzyttrick's problem of visiting multiple sites that have scripts needing updates would be avoided.

lazyttrick wrote:
it requires update script option defaulting to "no"

So you mean an option to avoid the GM user script install confirmation dialog when updating all scripts would be set to false by default? That sounds better than what I thought you were advocating before.

Maybe, just maybe, we could to the whole 'on execution' thing, except all it would do is see if an update is available, if so, push it to a stack / list, and change the monkey face icon. You could then "Show updates available" in the menu.

The only time it would directly notify the user of available updates, is on Firefox start-up or something, or a set amount of time after the last 'user interaction' with the updater.

So you are browsing, an update comes in, the monkey face changes. You continue browsing, some more updates are found but these are silently logged to a list, and 15-30 minutes after the first update was found, a little notification (like the add-on update one) appears to let you know updates were found. (Unless you had already updated by then)

The notification would not appear again to your either restarted Firefox, or you installed the updates then more became available.

Tim Smart wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, we could to the whole 'on execution' thing

I agree that at the start up of Firefox we should automatically prompt them to install updates(this also should be possible to turn off somewhere) and I don't think we should prompt for installing updates(an unobtrusive notification is ok) anywhere else or we risk interrupting the browsing experience which will piss people off.

There also should be an option to force check all installed(enabled) scripts for updates. For this all to work nicely I think we need a dedicated UI dialog just for updates.

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
Any ideas?

In short: we can't. The information needed isn't there >.< I mean, the closest you can get is searching the name on USO, but that is far from reliable...

sizzlemctwizzlewrote:
His updater even checks for updates of disabled scripts which is just stupid imo.

So you mean an option to avoid the GM user script install confirmation dialog when updating all scripts would be set to false by default?

what do we with scripts that are already installed when users update to the version of GM with an update checker?

lazyttrick wrote:
That's not avoidable from an userscript perspective. Unless they come up with GM_scriptDisabledListener.

lazyttrick wrote:
If the original URL is not available, alert the user about the new feature and recommend reinstalling, or just leave it alone and things will fall into place eventually. I think it's better to notify the user, shortly.

lazyttrick wrote:
With all the new ideas, I'm adapting to this:

Tim Smart wrote:
Ah! I probably didn't speak my mind well enough. It would be similar to Firefox's add-on updates, where it lists all the possible updates, with a tick box on each one, letting the user decide whether they want it installed or not. Sound good?

My 2p worth...

A @source meta for scripts to say where they come from - this would point at the uso install link for uso scripts, or whatever the source install link is for other scripts.

A @website meta linking to the About page (or similar) - so any update can let you click a link to see about it. The @update link from the *new* version is shown when an update is available (so it can point straight to the changelog etc if the scriptwright wants.

For scripts that point at the uso install then parse the uso Version in the About tab instead (save false install stats) - unless the false install stats could be overridden server-side if the GET is only for a smaller section of the source including the @meta block.

GM to store a hash of the installed version on install - and only automate the install if the hash hasn't changed (if it changes then no need to check every time). Any scripts that don't match the hash get shown to the user with a double-check tickbox and BIG WARNING that it's different etc.

The update to run at the same time as Firefox's own updates - and integrated with the Addons panel etc. Oh - and definitely done properly, I like the Chromifox theme :-P