noscript update wonky, need previous version

[kirby]

Just updated to latest version, got some pages that used to work now lost java or ? capabilities to have working buttons or selections that were working with the previous edition this morning.

Where can I get an archive copy of the noscript that was current a month or so ago?

My system is running an older 3.5 firefox


Thanks.

[Thrawn]

Before rolling back to an old version of NoScript, can you give specific details of your problems? Which sites are broken, what were they doing before & after the NoScript update, etc. Giorgio is very good at fixing things fast.

Can you also make sure that the NoScript update is the cause? Did you update anything else? Can you reproduce it in a clean profile?

Also, is it fixed in latest development build?

If you want to compare the behavior of the old and new versions, or you really need to roll back, you can go to NoScript's addon page and click on Version Information.

[kirby]

Thanks for the help.

I did install the very newest NoScript that showed as an update, and the only other update would have been the Avast anti-virus.

Here is one page that has lost all capability.
http://www.charter.com/channels/channelsGuide.jsp

That page is a memory hog when displayed, anyway, so having excess scripts running made it one that could use NoScript limiting to reduce overhead.

The widget buttons fail to advance/rollback the time frame, the columns that should show (but don't) when you click on the dates or times to see the next or previous time slots, clicking on a show fails to display the description, so basically all of the click-ability is gone on this one, for sure, that was there earlier.

-------------------------------

Another computer I tried (later firefox 9.0 version) that I added (don't think it was on there, yet) the same newest noscript to this afternoon fails to display any sign of having it installed, such as no yellow bar or slashed "S", options button etc., even after a re-start.

What's up with that?
Curiouser and curiouser, huh?

Thanks again.

[Thrawn]

Here is one page that has lost all capability.
http://www.charter.com/channels/channelsGuide.jsp

That page is a memory hog when displayed, anyway, so having excess scripts running made it one that could use NoScript limiting to reduce overhead.

The widget buttons fail to advance/rollback the time frame, the columns that should show (but don't) when you click on the dates or times to see the next or previous time slots, clicking on a show fails to display the description, so basically all of the click-ability is gone on this one, for sure, that was there earlier.

OK, I'm hardly seeing anything on that page at all, despite allowing charter.com and estara.com. There's a box that wants me to enter my ZIP code, and a submit button, but putting something in it and submitting just takes me back to the same page. I'm not seeing any widgets, or shows, or anything. Probably it's because I don't live in the USA? Does someone else want to try this out?

Kirby, can you confirm that it works with the older NoScript version?

Another computer I tried (later firefox 9.0 version) that I added (don't think it was on there, yet) the same newest noscript to this afternoon fails to display any sign of having it installed, such as no yellow bar or slashed "S", options button etc., even after a re-start.

If you don't have the add-on bar enabled on Firefox 4 & later, you might not see any NoScript icon. Try Ctrl+/, or View - Toolbars - Add-on Bar. NoScript should still appear in your Addons menu, Tools - Addons - Extensions, and you should be able to access it on the context menu by right-clicking on any page.

[kirby]

Much appreciated.
As for the newer 9.0 firefox setup, when I checked "extensions", there were a load of options that had been DISABLED for some goofy reason, so I have "enabled" and restart afterward looks to be showing the NoScript there. Still fails to work with charter.com, but works with charter.net with "rovicorp" enabled.


The info. about that "charter.com" page is that it was just fine earlier today before happening to click on the update options (only on NoScript, though) when I started the machine this morning. We had heavy storms coming through, so off at night during the lightning is my best choice then.
That problem of not being able to see the "add zip code" button was unable to show for me, either, and the same on the alternate "charter.net" that happens to work OK with the aforementioned computer OK (with FFOX 9/NS) when enabling "rovicorp". That computer will not evidently get the zipcode setup on the "charter.com" page, either, with nothing left to enable. Something on that page is not working with firefox and/or especially the NoScript.


I have gone desperate and decided to try "EXPLORER", oh, the horror!
------------------------
I just tried the newer machine with I-Explorer 8 and it failed to work on those pages, but since I have never used that explorer version to any extent, it may have functions turned off of JAVA or something.

I tried the older machine (the first in question) with it's older Explorer 6, I think, and did get the charter.com page to have the zip code box and the other necessary selections to work, plus the page with the TV listings has the date and hour selectors on the left top of the channel guide listings, rather than at the top right as on all of the firefox browser pages that I've used successfully.

Checked "charter.net" with that older machine now, too, and works with some semblance of usefulness (I can't get the calendar selector to function - huh!), so it's not like the newer machine with FFOX/NS having all functions on charter.net that need to work.

*********************************************
In conclusion, the older machine can get charter.com to work on Explorer 6, and the newer machine can get charter.net to work on Firefox 9 with NoScript.

Are we having fun with this investigation or what?

Thanks, and hope that helps stir away some mud.

Since the old IE is working with that (charter.com) page, it can't be a page problem, right?

[GµårÐïåñ]

Really hard to support "wonky" and "goofy". Actual symptoms and issues would be best in the future.

Try clean profile with NS only. If you still have issue then let us know, if not then go back to standard diagnostics and find out who your culprit is, chances are you have an extension conflict. And ALWAYS when encountering a "new issue", install the latest dev built so to ensure it hasn't already been addressed.

@Tom, you think you can draw up a standard template for reporting problems so we get the full picture without having to go back an forth like pulling teeth?

[Thrawn]

Try clean profile with NS only. If you still have issue then let us know, if not then go back to standard diagnostics and find out who your culprit is, chances are you have an extension conflict. And ALWAYS when encountering a "new issue", install the latest dev built so to ensure it hasn't already been addressed.

Also, can we confirm that with the older NoScript version, the site works? If it's broken with all NoScript versions, then we can conclude that there's some other factor at work.

[Tom T.]

@ kirby: Did you allow cookies (at least, per-session)? Any site that wants something as specific as a ZIP code will need a cookie to maintain that ZIP (or other data) for the session, as you navigate around. This was a strong early motivation to use cookies, the Internet being "stateless" (no pun intended), before they were used for tracking our browsing around the entire Web.

With cookies enabled, the site works for me in Firefox 12.0; 3.6.28, and 2.0.0.20.
Temp-allowed charter.com, but didn't need to allow estara. Additional cookies were set after entering ZIP.

I took a shot and entered ZIP 29301. Got a dropdown window, with Spartanburg (South Carolina) as the only entry. Clicked it.
Got another dropdown, "DIGITAL' and "BASIC". Chose "Basic".

It loaded. Clicking the arrows moved the time frame etc.
Note that there is an HTTPS at some point. If you allowed only www dot charter.com, you may have to allow https/charter.com.
So it's easier just to allow the entire charter.com domain, if you trust them.

On Fx 2.0, I had to click a placeholder (or in Blocked Objects sub-menu) for an <IFRAME>. Nothing on the later browsers.


@ Thrawn: With those diagnostic steps, are you angling for a slot on the Support Team?
Long hours, no pay, occasional insults (you know to what I refer), and once in a great while, a "thank you" from a satisfied user.

And yes, that site is for telly listings in the US. Not surprised that it won't accept your request. I had the same trouble with one BBC or The Register site (don't remember which; probably BBC). Had to get Giorgio or Guardian to use their UK proxies, which I don't have.

@Tom, you think you can draw up a standard template for reporting problems so we get the full picture without having to go back an forth like pulling teeth?

Already did, almost three years ago, soon after this forum opened.
Forum Rules #11 -- which, of course, you strongly supported in the pre-approval team discussion.

So, I don't think that re-posting them anywhere else will get any more users to read them.

[Kirby]

Sorry I wasn't more specific, but I thought readers might understand that when I was requesting an older version (from a month or so previous) and that I had "updated", then yes, I was using a previous edition of NS that worked perfectly well a day ago just before shutdown.
I never have had to do things like allow cookies, since I probably already had that "ticked" in the setup menu, but do understand that such an issue could be a problem if somebody had restricted as many internet permissions as they thought possible.

That's why I had been using the NoScript for a good while and always recommend Firefox with it included as a basic upgrade from IE.
I appreciate the lack of auto-run on ads, embedded videos, etc., and put up with having to allow permissions of what I choose to see.

In other words, the only thing done was to let the update run, so it deleted the previous NS version and loaded the newer NS - but then problems happened with that sole alteration, so I had thought if I could roll back to that previous version, maybe the functions returning was a possibility.

Trouble is, there is not an obvious "rollback" availability, so I decided to ask. So far, it looks like nobody knows of or will admit to there being such a possibility, so if not, no big deal. Too bad, because that would have been a simple thing to do to prove or disprove the point.

I really do understand the normal choice to try to make the current i.e. "best" version work, but there are notes that show tweaks need to be made, so does my problem warrant a "tweak" to fix this apparent glitch, or not?

If one current version had this problem, chances are that the next "newest and best" might have that situation alleviated and this issue I have would be moot.

I realize that the plethora of extensions and addons makes the potential conflict harder to diagnose - especially if multiples are loaded at the same time - and then how to choose which was causing what problem?

At least, in this one circumstance, I believe that there was only one apparent change in the list.

Thanks again.

[dhouwn]

Trouble is, there is not an obvious "rollback" availability, so I decided to ask. So far, it looks like nobody knows of or will admit to there being such a possibility, so if not, no big deal. Too bad, because that would have been a simple thing to do to prove or disprove the point.

See http://noscript.net/feed?c=200&t=a or http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/addons/722/

Your Firefox version was released around September 2010 so Noscript version 2.0.4 certainly should work with it.

[GµårÐïåñ]

Already did, almost three years ago, soon after this forum opened.
Forum Rules #11 -- which, of course, you strongly supported in the pre-approval team discussion.

So, I don't think that re-posting them anywhere else will get any more users to read them.

You are right, sorry I had forgotten it was there. Plus it serves as a rhetorical jab for people to use common sense. Telling me something is broke without telling me why you think its broke and what you have done to un-break it, or give me examples, doesn't help me debug it, just wastes time going back and forth.

[GµårÐïåñ]

@Kirby, if using an older version worked, but a newer version broke it, then you need to consider several things. 1) Is your browser still compatible? 2) did the browser change something in the latest update? 3) tell us, I was using THIS_VERSION on THIS_VERSION_BROWSER, going to THIS_NEW_VERSION on THIS_VERSION_BROWSER broke THIS functionality and this is how I can reproduce it. So we can narrow down what changes occured during point x to point y. 4) if you ever need to roll back, there are TWO, count them, TWO, private RSS feeds that point to EVERY SINGLE version of NS, and even some public AMO ones that provide them to you, so its not some secret as to where to get a previous version. I think this horse has been thoroughly beaten to death, so I will leave it at that. I'm out.

[Kirby]

So, if I understand correctly, some might need to know what exact version of what parts of each software I have in order to make a decision about the problem.

Of all the responses so far, I have not had any hint of where that list of archived versions might be found or even how to locate those 2 famous batches mentioned.

If they are a secret, you not mentioning them might make sense, but to claim that they are not secret but leave the mentioning to someone else strikes me as stating that there is a solution, but I'm not going to mention what it is. Good Luck.

I started out in the very beginning asking for the chance to get a previous version, and the lack of that input (now clearly admitted to being a simple matter of pointing to a page) to point to any source at all shows me the level of understanding that can be expected.

Can anyone show me where I am mistaken in that regard, or is it too much to admit that the simple request that has been confessed as do-able (i.e. showing the site(s) with the previous NS versions) is beyond the care of such a helpful group?

The more I see and deal with problems of my own and others, the more I notice that a goodly number of those that have (or should have) the answers fail in the department of adequate disclosure. Perhaps that is one way to keep others from being as informed as oneself, but if you are not trying to be really helpful and only want to make a little input, why are you here?

If anyone comes to my site of expertise, I make sure that plenty of info. is presented to allow the direction of decision to be more certain than it has seemed to be for me here.

At least I am not suffering through a crippled machine from such a minor change, but the forum name threw me in expecting a better conclusion to this situation.

Thank you.

[therube]

> I have not had any hint of where that list of archived versions might be found

You missed it, a number of posts up, by dhouwn, http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopi ... 229#p38229.
(I glossed over it too, originally. Then I realized it was already posted so thought you saw it too. Otherwise I would have posted similar.)

[GµårÐïåñ]

So, if I understand correctly, some might need to know what exact version of what parts of each software I have in order to make a decision about the problem.

No just what's relevant to this forum and its product so we can debug it. OS, Browser, Extension versions are the MINIMUM requirements to check. The rest of your addons, you don't want to give them, that's fine, that's what standard diagnostics is for, so YOU can find on your own what else might be conflicting.

Of all the responses so far, I have not had any hint of where that list of archived versions might be found or even how to locate those 2 famous batches mentioned.

Check the website for the software or do a search on the forum.

If they are a secret, you not mentioning them might make sense, but to claim that they are not secret but leave the mentioning to someone else strikes me as stating that there is a solution, but I'm not going to mention what it is. Good Luck.

I am not going to enable you. Its there, search for it.

Final thoughts: You know computers enough to locate the search box, and type noscript feeds and voila, TONS of responses where they are. This forum is public and in fact letting you use it anonymously right, so what's the secret? I find your lack of using common sense frankly absurd, not me leaving you where to find what everyone seems to find fine. In fact the choice to enable you was theirs, I don't have to follow it or enable you, I teach you to look for it. God gave you a brain right, use it.