Replies: 9 comments 37 replies
|
Do we have any performance measuring tools to see what processes are taking time for the time-to-readiness like profiler? |
3 replies
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/11fj3fa/ublock_takes_long_time_to_load/ allReadyAfter: 249271 ms |
5 replies
|
Should there be an announcement made about this on reddit maybe? Should we advise people to downgrade to 109? Has anybody tested if the issue persists into 111-113? |
3 replies
|
I made changes in 1.47.5b2 which should help diagnose uBO's "unreadiness" at launch:
|
9 replies
|
Wondering if this is related to filter lists load time or to something else. Chrome (pretty clean): Firefox (my dirty profile): |
8 replies
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
I notice a steep regression in time-to-readiness starting with Chromium 110.
I can see this on my side and this appears to be confirmed by looking at Support =>
allReadyAfterfor numerous filter issues with Chromium 110 being mentioned. This has to be a change in Chromium itself, since any previous version of Chromium do not systematically report 3000+ ms forallReadyAfterdespite the same uBO version being used.This means there could be an uptick in reports of Youtube video ads not being blocked or similar cases at browser launch.
All reactions