aj3423/SpamBlocker

Maybe bug

Closed this issue · 9 comments

Umotas commented

SpamBlocker version

3.5

Android version

12

The issue

(1) step
Contacts - on (Exclusive)
Or/and
Rule:
Contacts (c) .* - whitelist
Priority 10
P.S. contacts have the number 43299887766
(2) step
Rule: 43299.*
Decs: 000
Blacklist
Priority 1.
(3) step
Number 43299887766 was blocked by rule 000
Why?

aj3423 commented

I can't reproduce this, in my case, it's allowed by the contact rule .* as expected.
Screenshot_20241202-195947_SpamBlocker.png

BTW, this verbose testing log is added in the latest tag.

  • 👍1
Umotas commented

Yes, It is my mistake. I see my error. All is working well

Umotas commented

See steps
(1) contact
1
(2) Contacts - Exlusive
2
(3) Rule
3
(4) Testing
4

The numbers is in Contacts, and it is blocked.

Ilithy commented

Hi;
This normal behavior, if you check the prioritization of contacts, in exclusion, they have a priority of 0, so your blocking rule (having a priority of 1) acts before.

See capture:
IMG_20241203_075958

Your rule must have a priority of -1 to be activated after contacts

  • 👍2
aj3423 commented

Yeah, negative filters have priority 0, except the MeetingMode.

  • 👍1
Umotas commented

Yeah, negative filters have priority 0, except the MeetingMode.

What is your logic to set Priority for 'Contacts' (in Exclusive-mode) to 0. Why it isn't = 10 also?

Umotas commented

Maybe it could be interesting to make the quick settings priorities editable...

This is rule for Contacts.
There is analog for Contacts' quick settings = the rule has settings for Priority.
spamblocker

  • 👀1
Ilithy commented

I don't think so, what you are displaying is for adding a rule via regex (there, the prioritization of the rule is selectable), this does not allow you to modify the priority of the quick parameter "contacts" (inclusive or exclusive)
_20241203_100844

But I am probably wrong about the usefulness of such an option. :)

[Édit] haa yes I understand what you meant by that, it overrides the rules (and takes priority) over the existing quick parameters, indeed

aj3423 commented

What is your logic to set Priority for 'Contacts' (in Exclusive-mode) to 0. Why it isn't = 10 also?

When positive and negative filters have the same priority value, it will be impossible to determine whether it should be blocked or allowed. For example, if you have both

  • A whitelist rule .* (priority: 10)
  • A blacklist rule .* (priority: 10)
    What result do you expect?

Maybe it could be interesting to make the quick settings priorities editable...
But I am probably wrong about the usefulness of such an option. :)

Yeah, such option would complicate the UI, and wouldn't be that necessary, 10 and 0 should've covered all use cases.

The v4.0 introduced verbose testing log, as in the previous image, which should help troubleshooting such priority issues.

  • 👍1