I know firefox has the very useful “Copy clean Link” option in the context menu, but I would like a similar feature for copying links from any other software, like spotify for example. So I am looking for some software that hooks into the clipboard pipeline, and cleans any URL that gets added. I tried googling for something like it, but was completely unsuccessful. Does anyone have a clue how I might go about achieving this?
Thanks in advance :)
Edit: I found out about klipper’s actions, which provide the option to run a command when a string that matches a regex is added to the clipboard buffer. I am not sure how to properly use this though, so any help is appreciated!
That’d be cool. Whenever I’m sharing a YT link, I’m always a bit suspicious of what info the youtu.be URL is hiding, so I paste it into a browser to get a clean URL.
Maybe this is silly, but I’d be cool to do that automatically.
Looks like https://old.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/d3m0fz/how_to_open_links_in_mpv_with_klipper/ is a good starting point, i.e
- Open menu in system tray.
- Right click on Clipboard => Configure Clipboard.
- Go to Actions Configuration => Add Action.
then… to try! :D I’m just discovering this too but seems like the right way.
That said I’d be cautious and limit the use case to only what you have, e.g. Spotify links, at least at first because I imagine one can get into hairy edge cases quickly.
Keep us posted!
You never define “clean”.
To strip excess URL parameters (i.e. beginning “&”, almost certainly junk) if the clipboard buffer contains a URL and only a URL (Wayland only):
if url=$(printf '%s' "$(wl-paste --no-newline | awk '$1=$1' ORS=' ')" | egrep -o 'https?://[^ ]+') ; then wl-copy "${url%%\&*}" fiFair enough, I haven’t given that too much thought myself until now. After playing around with Firefox’s URL cleaning, I realized there are some parameters I want to keep. So, by clean I mean removing all unnecessary parameters in the URL.
For example,
https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRwwould becomehttps://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw, buthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQXAC9IVRwkeeps it’s parameter, because it is necessary.I guess replicating the logic for deciding which parameters to keep is not trivial, so the easiest solution is probably just manually pasting links into firefox, and just copying them cleanly from there. Thanks for providing some code, though!
Query parameters are junk? They have tons of legitimate uses, they’re one of the better places to keep state.
As a WebDev… URL parameters are definitely not the place to keep state… Were not in the 00’s anymore. They do have legit uses, but we have JS localStorage nowadays.
They have pretty different use cases. Localstorage is for when you want persistence across page loads, not necessarily specific to any particular page but specific to a browser. An example would be storing user-selected light or dark mode.
Query parameters are specific to a page/URL and you get a lot of things for free when you use them:
- back/forward navigation
- bookmarking
- copy-paste to share
- page level caching
- access on both server and client
Query parameters are good for things like searches, filters, sorting, etc
I disagree. I definitely prefer REST APIs that use the file path for searches, filters, sorting. You get most if not all benefits from query parameters, and if done correctly it is just as clearly readable as query params.
But what if you have multiple optional parameters?
have multiple routes point to the same endpoint, dynamically adding the parameters serverside
That sounds harder than just using query parameters. What are the benefits?
Edit: Oh, OP basically already said the same thing.
I think it really depends on the website and even where you are on the website. For example, if you’re on YT, the
watch?v=<b64_id>is probably not something you want to throw away. If you’re on a news site likeimaginarynews.com/.../the-article-title/?tracking-garbage=<...>then you probably do. It’s just a matter of having “sane” defaults that work as most people would expect.Sure, but my script only gets rid of the second and later parameters, i.e. ones with
¬?. Personally I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single site where an¶m is critical. These days there few where the?matters either, but yes YT is a holdout.
