Greasy Fork镜像

I can confirm Gorp comment - Script will not work for highlighted links that are scrollable past the visible area. The number of links will not show. It is possible that the link popup does open, but it may be only viewable near the top of the selection instead of near where the selection ends. When it does show up, it is partially obscured by the links instead of appearing on top of or to the left or right of the selection.

There is also an issue of the script double counting the links parsed for copying.

Examples 1 and 2
3 links selected, 6 links counted
5 links selected, 10 links counted in parser popup.

example 3 is from youtube playlist - highlighted 9 links, popup parser showed 27 links captured (only partially visible at the very top of the viewable selection area and difficult to reproduce)

I really dont get why people make a product for the public but dont ensure that it works properly out of the box. Then decide they don't want to update or maintain it going forward. Why waste peoples' time? You could have just went fishing and nobody would have bothered you.

Thanks for the detailed bug report/reproduction, that's absolutely helpful, especially with screenshots for context. I just checked the code and it looks like I forgot to check screen bounds, which is probably all it takes to avoid this.

As for your last paragraph, there's a lot to unpack there:

• it doesn't "not work properly": it works fine for the typical usecase where you have a handful of links close together on-screen and that's 99% of what I intend for this script's usage. Huge selections going off-screen is an edgecase, and some invisible page structure/layout details can always cause weird results. Working or not working is a matter of what goals are set to begin with.
• bugs like this are normal and the reason software development happens in iterations of feedback and fixes. You can't envision every possible way something might go wrong and preemptively fix it before release.
• we all have to decide what to spend our time on, and these little tools have always been lower prio to me than my job, health, other projects, etc. I'm not required to work for free, I'll work on this stuff when I feel like it.
• consider the nature of open source software. Standstill projects are not a waste but stepping stones: you're free to take the code and refine it (respecting licensing details like author credit if you're starting from a copy), fix issues or add usecases yourself, since most of the work is already done. Or you can sit on your laurels and wait for someone to do it for you.

I'm not wasting anyone's time but my own by making my work public. I've given you a free tool that has served you, me, and others well lots of times. One little glitch doesn't undo that, it just means in this specific case you'll have to do it the old way for now. The beauty of open source is you can do the productive thing and try to fix it yourself if you have the know-how, either upstream (here) or in a personal fork, if you don't want to just wait and hope.

Literally earlier today, I was using an open source tool and found something that was broken. I reported it to the maintainers (as you and Gorp have, thank you), figured it out in detail, and even contributed what's probably the solution. All I gotta do now is wait for it to be merged and everyone'll be happy in record time. If they never merge/fix it for whatever reason, I can figure out how else I want to deal with this issue, but it hardly cancels the entire project's value.

I still go proverbially fishing anyway, I just make my work public because it works well enough to be of value to loads of people, and sometimes it leads to fun work or experiences for me. Lots of people have shown their thanks for saved time/effort with donations too.

And just so I'm not only preaching, I've just published v3 which both fixes this bug (I tested it on a local news website) and tries to prevent the button from appearing behind other stuff. You're welcome to update and enjoy. :)

By the way, I don't get the same GUI as you since I'm the script author, but if you would please change the review level from "bad: does not work" to "ok: works but has bugs", that'd be appreciated since that's actually the truth. It's not like v2 never worked at all to begin with.

If you have a button to mark the issue as fixed, or if greasyfork expects you to change the level to "good" in the case of a resolving update (I honestly don't know how greasyfork looks on the reviewer side), please do.