Tampermonkey userscript doesn't seem to work

[MagicLegend]

Hi there,

Since I try to keep my browser/computer free of 'junk' software as much as I can I was pleased to note that there was an option to get the theme as a Tampermonkey userscript. But, this doesn't appear to be working, given the fact that my pages are still white and TM doesn't indicate that a script is running. I just clicked the link on userstyles.org and added the script it gave me.

Is this an issue that can be reproduced, or is my TM not working correctly?

Thanks.

[MagicLegend]

Note:
I just visited the stats.stackexchange.com site, and the script does work there, but still not on stackoverflow.com (the site that matters for me :p). When visiting other stackexchange.com sites will also show the dark theme (which is lovely by the way!)

[Mottie]

Hi, check out the "Stylish" issue open on the GitHub-Dark repo... the user script is missing some @ includes. I would have shared a link and code but I'm on my phone and out of the country. Update: link to post: StylishThemes/GitHub-Dark#455 (comment)

[MagicLegend]

Sorry for my late reply; Thank you for yours. I've found the issue and the missing include lines. I had already added a few myself, but apparently there were more needed :) The script now works as intended. Thank you for your time, and have a nice holiday (I guess you're on holiday :p)

[CollinChaffin]

Yea I think we may have to reach out to Justin over at the userstyles site what people don't realize is that his site operates on the CSS styles for Stylish, and then the site has code that performs a conversion of that code to the userscript.js that we all use on Tampermonkey. I have yet to see any of my scripts lately come updated and have ANY includes - making them 100% worthless and literally not execute a thing without manual intervension to add include lines. Luckily, I keep good backups of my scripts so now I have the daunting task every day of doing much copying/pasting of the prior working include lines per script into memory, say yes to perform that particular script update, refresh TM, and paste back in the include lines, and finally - resave that script. When you run HUNDREDS of TM scripts.....it begins getting old pretty quick.

Until recently I had no idea that conversion process was even taking place - and since this theme is exactly that - the CSS then being "converted" by that site.....therein lies the issue. I've talked to 2 other DEVs that also have no way of forcibly adding (that they have found) the missing include lines themselves, since they are apparently simply ignored as comments during that conversion process, anyway.

I'm guessing @Mottie probably not only has Justin's contact, but I'm certain much more pull in possibly getting this addressed sooner rather than later. :_bow:

[Mottie]

Hi @CollinChaffin!

I think you mean Jason, and no I don't have any special fast-track :(... Anyway, it appears that userstyles.org site was also transferred along with the Stylish browser extension since it is now listed under https://github.com/stylish-userstyles/userstyles. Maybe open an issue there?

If you are using Chrome, switch to using the Stylus extension. The firefox extension doesn't appear to have been updated yet, so it's still good for now. I'm not sure about the other browsers.

[CollinChaffin]

Oh sorry yes Jason someone was literally just standing here as I typed that reply and talking to me about their cousin named Justin lol! Good news and hope this helps, I did some research myself as I just got 2 script updates that DID have the includes, and here is what one of their CSS code has for directives, that in turn DID in fact come down in the userscript as fully converted proper includes that for the first time in a while I have seen did not require me to intervene to replace:

@-moz-document domain("amazon.co.uk"), domain("amazon.com"), domain("amazon.ca"), domain("amazon.de"), domain("amazon.it")

in their CSS style converted and installed in the userscript as:

// @include       http://amazon.co.uk/*
// @include       https://amazon.co.uk/*
// @include       http://*.amazon.co.uk/*
// @include       https://*.amazon.co.uk/*
// @include       http://amazon.com/*
// @include       https://amazon.com/*
// @include       http://*.amazon.com/*
// @include       https://*.amazon.com/*
// @include       http://amazon.ca/*
// @include       https://amazon.ca/*
// @include       http://*.amazon.ca/*
// @include       https://*.amazon.ca/*
// @include       http://amazon.de/*
// @include       https://amazon.de/*
// @include       http://*.amazon.de/*
// @include       https://*.amazon.de/*
// @include       http://amazon.it/*
// @include       https://amazon.it/*
// @include       http://*.amazon.it/*
// @include       https://*.amazon.it/*

And here is the wiki (perhaps this is not new to you) but it does verify my findings above as to how to easily include the proper domains in a way that carries forward through the conversion process into the userscript.js:

https://github.com/stylish-userstyles/stylish/wiki/Valid-@-moz-document-rules

Hope this helps you! I know it helped answer this very question that was bothering me and I should have just taken a bit more time to research and

EDIT: I'm happy to verify that the one DEV I was helping already added this directive and sure enough as I was typing this update got his userscript update that included the above moz directives, and the missing includes in his script came through right away!**

EDIT2: Missed your recommendation to switch to Stylish extension. Thanks but for me, I'd never leave TamperMonkey extension which is a super-actively developed and updated (IMO very improved) version of Greasemonkey on Chrome. It allows for world more than simple CSS and even the very limited planned support for JS that Stylish does/will offer anytime soon. I mean, I have scripts that easily can inject the needed page events, etc. to redir links (all http to https on a site as example) that are just way out of the scope of simple "styling" that I admit (I have used it) Stylish extension is pretty good at handling. I just need a lot more as do, it sounds like, the other folks above that opened/commented on this issue. Good news is, the fix to this "bug" is just adding the proper moz directive really only so the 3rd party website that converts it can simply change it to a whole different set of directives, but for what could be the majority user-base of the style to being with! :)

[CollinChaffin]

Hey @Mottie you won't believe the coincidence on this I was just talking to another DEV who told me "you know that Jason turned over everything to a guy name JUSTIN, right?" ....I couldn't believe it LOL. He sent me a link that I hadn't seen that I wanted to also share with you as well:

https://forum.userstyles.org/discussion/51747/the-new-leader-of-stylish-and-userstyles-org

....and it's actually kind of a SCARY read if you take a minute to look at it....makes me a bit concerned now about that site in general I'm not a Stylish user but in that thread some of the reports are a bit alarming and I wonder if I will ever hear back from anyone after reading the recent other comments there.

EDIT (Even scarier directly from Justin himself had no idea an analytics company had taken it over but he himself confirms here):
https://forum.userstyles.org/discussion/53233/announcement-to-the-community

I'm single dad of 2 babies at home so time is big commodity for me lately so I haven't yet had time to reach out to Justin today but I do plan to hopefully in next few days on a couple of site questions and if I learn of anything that further impact this specific issue I will update it accordingly.

-Collin

[Mottie]

[CollinChaffin]

Reason I'm commenting here in this GH issue is, unless they change directions or roll back, there is a very strong chance that 100% of what's above in this issue just became completely irrelevant since they also apparently made a giant decision in a vacuum without ever polling their user-base that those of us (an actual majority IMO) utilize either TM on Chrome, or GM on FF (or one of many variants) that as of the new site - All old converted userscripts are no longer accessible and new ones are no longer being created. So the new solution to this open issue is - install the GitHub-Dark and others directly from this Github repo via the RAW links, and just add the includes yourself for now, if needed.

As this issue is really a results of the userscript conversion from the userstyles.org site I'll mention here - wasn't far off apparently on my prediction you may have already seen the totally botched userscripts.org site rollout that has 100% broken all TM/GM/userscript.js users. IMO, They must have some real inexperienced kids over there with that new Jason that also must not have much management experience if he actually approved such a mistake as one of his first big decisions.

I've already talked to several other DEVs today that either have already, or in the process of closing their accounts and (fighting) with the non-existent site admins there to remove their scripts, since they apparently also have removed all abilities to permanently removed one's own scripts, if desired. For me, I'll have to stick to greasyfork.org temporarily since it's also possibly moving to that same mgmt and itself just went down for 2 whole days when the cert expired until Jason B. got it back up and running. It really appears safest is github for perm hosting of one's scripts, and perhaps openuserjs.org now I'm not 100% sure who owns that one but if greasyfork.org ever moves fully under the stylish umbrella as well, OUJS will be IMO the only safe public userscript.js GM/TM/etc. directory being maintained.

[Mottie]

It wouldn't be too hard to have our build process create a userscript for the Stack Exchange/Overflow style for each release.

The main issue would be allowing you to modify the options...

[Mottie]

Ummm what the heck... where did all the style option settings go on userstyles.org?

[CollinChaffin]

I rest my case. This is EXACTLY what I was trying to warn folks about over a year ago.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/chrome-and-firefox-pull-stylish-add-on-after-report-it-logged-browser-history/

[the-j0k3r]

Old news now, but never old enough to spread around.