simple-tab-groups icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
simple-tab-groups copied to clipboard

Integration with firefox native tab groups

Open ianrispin opened this issue 6 months ago • 3 comments

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Firefox just added a native tab groups feature, similar to chrome's tab groups. My hope was that I would be able to stack tab groups - that is, use Firefox's feature to create more tab groups within a simple tab group. Unfortunately, while the tabs themselves remain in their simple tab groups, the Firefox tab group labels persist regardless of which simple tab group I'm in. (To clarify, when I click the label for a native tab group to expand the tabs, but the tabs are in another simple tab group, the label's button styling changes, but it does not reveal any tabs)

Describe the solution you'd like I would like to not see the Firefox native tab group labels if they contain tabs which are not in my current active simple tab group

Describe alternatives you've considered I've looked in the Firefox browser settings, as well as in the settings for the simple tab groups extension, but have not found anything that would solve this issue

Additional context Unclicked tab group label (while in another simple tab group) Image

"Expanded" tab group label (clicked while in another simple tab group) Image

ianrispin avatar Jun 27 '25 20:06 ianrispin

This is exactly what I came here for to suggest.

olfMombach avatar Jun 28 '25 16:06 olfMombach

Dupe of https://github.com/Drive4ik/simple-tab-groups/issues/1290

GitHub Etiquette

  • Please use the 👍 reaction to show that you are affected by the same issue. (?)
  • Please don't comment if you have no relevant information to add. It's just extra noise for everyone subscribed to this issue. (?)
  • Subscribe to receive notifications on new comments, or get notified of resolution with 'Status'. (?)

jtagcat avatar Jun 28 '25 18:06 jtagcat

I think this issue describes the problem in a cool way with images and all, but might be a duplicate of #1290 and/or #1237.

Aspects of this issue have been discussed in those issues such as the possible obstacles of the implementation and a similar description of the problem was made on this comment

gurrenPizza avatar Aug 07 '25 18:08 gurrenPizza