Visual popup inconsistency of the "Dynamic filtering" feature

[Mikey1993]

I have managed to get uBlock to get (what I believe) a corrupted profile, which on filehippo.com isn't accounting the global rules of blocking the 3rd party scripts and frames.

Steps:

1. Download and load my (cleared from personal "Your filters") profile: https://mega.co.nz/#!aIpXhKTC!CiIQdh_k6SCKROipmU9WxS6P_6S5n_Snd8rjMxat370
2. Enter this site: http://www.filehippo.com/
3. Open uBlock popup.
4. Notice that the global rules of 3rd party scripts and frames are marked red, BUT NOT the domain rules (grayed), when it should of course marked red because of the global rules.
5. Notice that the 3rd party blockage isn't really blocking the assets by enabling the logging feature.
6. Click the 3rd party domain level rules -> boxes become red.
7. Reload the page and the 3rd party blockage now IS actually working.

Note: Clicking on "Start from scratch..." fixes the problem, But after loading the above profile, the issue appears again.
Note 2: I haven't noticed this issue before on other sites.
Note 3: I've also checked this with importing this 'corrupted' profile to a fresh profile of chrome, same results.

[gorhill]

If I use http://filehippo.com/ in the address bar I see allow rules which override the global block rules.

[Mikey1993]

http://filehippo.com/ - GOOD
http://www.filehippo.com/ - BAD

[gorhill]

Well the implementation will try to find and use rules on ancestor hostnames. If I block google.com I wouldn't be too happy to find out that groups.google.com is not blocked. Isn't?

The real problem here is that there is no UI yet in the dashboard to inspect the dynamic filters, otherwise you would have been able to spot the reason why www.filehippo.com was not blocked.

[Mikey1993]

So you mean that the global rules, aren't really global?
Because as far as I can see it, the fundamental problem here is that the global rules aren't being applied to all the sites, and I have no visual cue for why it's happening as you have mentioned.

When you decide to enable the blockage of 3rd party assets with the global rules, you would expect them to be, as what it's promises to be - global.

Am I right?

[gorhill]

So you mean that the global rules, aren't really global?

No I don't mean this.

Your filters for filehippo.com override global rules. Whatever descendant hostnames of filehippo.com, i.e. www.filehippo.com will inherit filters from filehippo.com.

If you allowed filehippo.com, it's safer and more convenient to propagate these filters to related descendant hostnames.

Imagine if I block 1st-party scripts for crappy-site.com, only to find out that 1st-party scripts on really.crappy-site.com are not blocked. Now, that is bad.

[Mikey1993]

Right, I see and agree that the current behavior is the right one.

But if so, then why the 3rd party scripts & frames domain level rules boxes aren't grayed out on www.filehippo.com as they are on filehippo.com?
Because someone might also think that this visual inconsistency is a bug (as I did).

[gorhill]

Yes, I could display them with the darker shade.

[Mikey1993]

Thanks.
Hope to see this fixed in the next version.