-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Add a list of Windows apps with known compatibility issues #8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
a227c56
3813115
f54a9bf
eb60a8d
7ed3212
c1ff39c
171dd6a
0d5e519
7fee128
f854635
89d521e
e67ce87
3463676
c7bb1f3
ef41454
a94eddb
5694a86
7bf44ae
7b1d35c
080c206
1e6b124
f71e4bd
9868404
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Although we strive to maintain a high quality of filtering primarily through rul | |
|
|
||
| ## What AdGuard applications use these filtering lists? | ||
|
|
||
| Currently, they apply to AdGuard for Android. | ||
| Currently, they apply to AdGuard for Android and AdGuard for Windows. | ||
|
|
||
| ## How do these lists get updated in the AdGuard apps? | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -77,3 +77,27 @@ Here’s a simple steps to help you sort things out. | |
| - [`ipv4_routes_exclusions_fujitsu.txt`](android/routes_exclusions/ipv4_routes_exclusions_fujitsu.txt) - A list of IPv4 ranges excluded from routing on problematic devices. This list applies on Fujitsu devices: F-01J, F-01K, F-01L, F-02H, F-03H, F-03K, F-04H, F-04K. | ||
|
|
||
| - [`ipv6_routes_exclusions.txt`](android/routes_exclusions/ipv6_routes_exclusions.txt) - A list of IPv6 ranges excluded from routing. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Compatibility configuration for AdGuard for Windows | ||
|
|
||
AlexandrPkhm marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - [`http_filtering_exclusions_apps.json`](windows/http_filtering_exclusions_apps.json) - A list of app executables where traffic filtering is disabled (App Management -> Filter traffic). | ||
|
|
||
| - [`route_exclusions_apps.json`](windows/route_exclusions_apps.json) - A list of app executables where routing through AdGuard is disabled (App Management -> Route traffic through AdGuard). | ||
|
|
||
| - [`browsers.json`](windows/browsers.json) - A list of browsers where HTTPS traffic filtering is enabled by default (App Management -> Filter HTTPS traffic). | ||
|
|
||
| - [`https_filtering_apps.json`](windows/https_filtering_apps.json) - A list of non-browser apps where HTTPS traffic filtering is enabled by default (App Management -> Filter HTTPS traffic). | ||
|
|
||
| ### Application model structure | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't think it's a good idea to have identical structure for They have different purpose, and some fields only make sense in In
At the same time,
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Btw, if this is true, I'd say it would be better to structure a browser record like this: {
"name": "Google Chrome",
"routing_conditions": {
"file_description": "Google Chrome",
"executable_names": [
"chrome.exe"
],
},
"installed_conditions": [
// here go the installed conditions
]
}In this case we'll only need |
||
|
|
||
| Each application entry in the JSON files uses the following structure: | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is it not explained which files from above should use this structure |
||
|
|
||
| - `name` - Application or browser display name | ||
| - `file_description` - File description (optional, can be empty) | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I suggest renaming |
||
| - `executable_names` - Array of executable file names associated with the application | ||
| - `installed_conditions` - Array of conditions to detect if the application is installed. Each condition has: | ||
| - `type` - Type of condition: `"RegistryKey"` or `"FilePath"` | ||
| - `pattern` - Registry key path or file path pattern (supports environment variables like `%LOCALAPPDATA%`, `%PROGRAMFILES%`, etc.) | ||
| - `public_issue_url` - Link to the public GitHub issue (optional) | ||
| - `private_issue_id` - Internal issue ID (optional) | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
для макоси и клишных блокеров не актуально?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Пока нет, так как в них еще не реализован System wide filtering
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ну почему, актуально для макоси, про это задача есть