Opening Consecutive New Tabs in Vivaldi Ignores Limit

[duskentail]

Hi,

I'm on Win 11 using latest Vivaldi browser and version of xTab.

When I open multiple, blank tabs, xTab starts to remove them to keep them in limit like normal. But when I go faster than it is able to delete it, it "can't keep up" and I can trick it into opening more than I defined.

I am unfamiliar with Issue reporting on this platform so if you need more information, I'm happy to provide.

[ccampbell]

Hi. Thanks for the report. I’m not positive if this is a bug exactly.

• Does it still happen if you set it to “Block new tabs from opening”?
• Does it still happen if you wait a second or two after opening each tab before opening the next one?

What I think might be happening is there is a timer that basically only includes a tab in the list of tabs to consider “open” if it stays open on the screen for a second or two. The intention originally was to make sure if you open a tab that you’ve never actually BEEN to, the extension does not close it until you’ve actually seen it. For example, if you right click on a link and pick to open in a new tab, since you’ve never viewed that new tab before, I didn’t want to automatically close it before you’ve had a chance to see it. This does mean that if you open tabs rapidly the extension doesn’t think you’ve had a chance to “view them” yet and therefore temporarily allows you to go above the limit.

Put another way, tabs that you haven’t actually been to and interacted with (cause they were opened in the background or rapidly) are exempt from the open tab list until they are viewed.

If you navigate back to the previous tabs and hold on each one for a second or two, then open a new one, it should close enough tabs to get you back under the limit.

For example, if you have the limit set to 5, but rapidly open 10 tabs, then you go back and view all 10 of them slowly. When you open a new tab at that point (an 11th tab), it should close 6 tabs to bring you back down to 5.

The “Block new tabs from opening” option should skip this check though since it never has to close an old tab once you reach the limit. So if your goal is to never have the browser allow you to temporarily go above the limit at all, the block option may be what you are looking for.

[duskentail]

I tried replicating your scenario. From what I saw, it didn't try to bring me back down to 10 which I had defined. I opened 16 tabs and went to google.com on each of them, and it was cool with it. Just didn't know this was intended.

I did however enable the "Block new tabs from opening" which did produce the behavior I was expecting/wanted. Thank you for that.

[ccampbell]

I tried replicating your scenario. From what I saw, it didn't try to bring me back down to 10 which I had defined

After you opened 16 and went to Google.com on each of them, did you then try opening a 17th? That should be the trigger to bring it back down if it’s working correctly. It’s possible there may be a bug somewhere else though.

Just didn't know this was intended.

It arguably isn’t intended since people have been confused by the behavior including you! I will consider adding a setting for if the limit should apply to tabs that were only opened quickly or in the background. At the very least I should update the description to explain this behavior.

The problem I ran into when I first started working on the extension is I used to go to sites with a bunch of links and open them all up in background tabs to check later, and I started to get annoyed when they would close before I even had a chance to look at them. This was my attempt to account for that, but since it is timer based it also means opening up a bunch of tabs quickly allows you to bypass the limit.

[duskentail]

After you opened 16 and went to Google.com on each of them, did you then try opening a 17th? That should be the trigger to bring it back down if it’s working correctly. It’s possible there may be a bug somewhere else though.

Just tried this with default settings and it did work. But only for the tabs I had "visited," while ignoring the new ones I hadn't.