Support for specifying a custom URL that has a searx instance

[DonkeeeyKong]

Hello. First of all: Thank you for this great add-on! I have been using it for years!

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Right now the only searx instance that is supported is searx.org. But there is a whole list of public instances plus many more non public installations including people self-hosting there own private instance.

Describe the solution you'd like
It would be great if it was possible to add a custom URL with a searx instance in the settings.

Describe alternatives you've considered
The option to alter the searx.org entry to another instance.

Thanks for considering! :)

[Juraj-Masiar]

I'll see what I can do!
Just to brainstorm here, what I need to do is:

1. allow users to add custom domain
2. assign that domain to an existing domain (or maybe allow extending existing domain with a custom URL which will inherit the "rules" and "selectors" needed for finding the search results)
3. add a code that will ask "Request access to <new host>" permission.
   Hmmm, this one sounds like a show-stopper. From what I can see in the docs, I need to define all hosts manually upfront:

Permissions must come from the set of permissions defined in the optional_permissions manifest.json key.

So addon cannot request permanent access to a new host that user enters, it must always be pre-specified in the manifest file in the addon.

But I could just add those domains from the link you've posted, similarly as I'm already doing it for 100 google domains :)

[DonkeeeyKong]

Hi, thanks a lot for the quick answer!

But I could just add those domains from the link you've posted, similarly as I'm already doing it for 100 google domains :)

This is a good improvement already, it would still exclude all non-public or selfhosted instances though.

So addon cannot request permanent access to a new host that user enters, it must always be pre-specified in the manifest file in the addon.

I found this answer on Stack Overflow, where somebody was asking for help with the same problem: https://stackoverflow.com/a/71913707

Is including <all_urls> in the optional_permissions of manifest.json a problem? The specific permissions per website would still be requested only if the user specifically asks for that and not automatically.

[Juraj-Masiar]

Yes, using "all_urls" should help, but there is big downside for Firefox users:

The blue/green "attention required" dot will be displayed on every single page (currently it's displayed only on pages where the search is actually supported).

More info in these super long threads:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1851083
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1766026

Chrome currently doesn't show the attention icon (I think only Firefox and Safari does).
Maybe we should request this on bugzilla, to not show the dot for the "all_urls" since requesting attention for every page is not a good design.

[Juraj-Masiar]

Actually... there seem to have been some development and the attention icon is no longer enabled for Firefox 130 and above?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1905931
(I'm developing with Firefox ESR 128, so I'll still see it)

I'll investigate :)

[DonkeeeyKong]

Actually... there seem to have been some development and the attention icon is no longer enabled for Firefox 130 and above? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1905931 (I'm developing with Firefox ESR 128, so I'll still see it)

I just tried and visited a website that's supported by the plugin but not enabled by me and there is no such attention dot on Firefox 132.0.1. Only when I click on the plugin's icon I see a banner to enable the plugin on this website.