Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Option to open a specific Url In seperate browser directly #360

Open
3 tasks done
heartlog opened this issue Jun 2, 2024 · 4 comments
Open
3 tasks done

Option to open a specific Url In seperate browser directly #360

heartlog opened this issue Jun 2, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@heartlog
Copy link

heartlog commented Jun 2, 2024

Describe a related problem (optional)

Suppose i want to open https://website.com/* in one browser, url checker don't come thant much handy. Add module to pass the url checker and directly open link into my defined browser.

Describe your suggested feature

If I try to open specific links, it'll open it to my desired browser directly.

Describe alternatives you've considered for your suggested feature

  • Something like default browser for url -

Other details

No response

Acknowledgements

  • I have searched the existing issues and this is a new ticket, NOT a duplicate or related to another open issue.
  • I have written a short but informative title.
  • I will fill out all of the requested information in this form.
@heartlog heartlog added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 2, 2024
@ncoleman
Copy link

I support this feature request. For example, I get emails every day from several vendors. I don't want to go through URLchecker when I open the links in the email, just go straight to the browser.

I imagine this could work like a pattern match in the hosts fille, or similar.

@KaXaSA
Copy link

KaXaSA commented Nov 22, 2024

Version 3.0 is almost there with the "Automations" feature. While you might not be able to specify the browser, the app should remember the last browser used for each URL and automatically open it in that browser directly.

Example (Google)

  1. Click any link that has the Google domain (ex: https://google.com)

  2. Select the Browser you want it to use, I will use FireFox for this example.

  3. Now go back to URLCheck

  4. Click Automations and enable both options

  5. Click Json editor
    (probably a good idea to read the instructions)

  6. Paste the code below inside it, replacing all the content:
    ("Unshort bit.ly" is the default example that is already in the file, I just added a new entry with my Google example)

{
  "Unshort bit.ly": {
    "regex": "https?:\/\/bit\\.ly\/.*",
    "action": "unshort",
    "enabled": false
  },
  "Google": {
    "regex": "https?:\/\/(www\\.)?google\\.com.*",
    "action": "open",
    "enabled": true
  }
}
  1. Save

  2. Click on any link from Google's domain.
    (it should open it directly in the browser you selected in step 2.)


I would love if we could actually define the browser/app that will be used to open the matched regex.

Also, it would be nice to allow an array/list in the regex, like:

    "regex": [
        "https?:\/\/(www\\.)?site1\\.com.*", 
        "https?:\/\/(www\\.)?site2\\.com.*"
    ],

I understand you can adapt the regex to archive something similar, but things gets ugly pretty fast.

@TrianguloY
Copy link
Owner

TrianguloY commented Nov 22, 2024

I would love if we could actually define the browser/app that will be used to open the matched regex.

I expect to add this for the next version. I didn't add it at the first iteration because I wanted to start simple (and avoid taking several more months!). This way you can also provide feedback and I can adapt.

Also, it would be nice to allow an array/list in the regex, like:

With regex you can easily have this by just concatenating with | like "https?:\/\/(www\\.)?site1\\.com.*|https?:\/\/(www\\.)?site2\\.com.*", or even extract the common parts "https?:\/\/(www\\.)?(site1\\.com|site2\\.com).*" but I think Pablo is going to implement that soon, should be easy and will make it more explicit

@PabloOQ
Copy link
Collaborator

PabloOQ commented Nov 22, 2024

I must say I find funny the coincidence. With a difference of just one day, the same feature, asked for similar reasons and using the same format, tucked away after a separator line.

Anyway, there is the PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants