This kind of reply is why I can’t be bothered to report bugs anymore in general - between you and the people who know how to solve the problem there are five layers of bureaucrats who want to waste your time by bouncing the ball back into your court and asking for completely irrelevant details.

This has happened to me a couple times in the Chromium bugtracker.

Another issue I filed:

https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40900126

I provided a click-by-click instruction with only 3 steps.

The triager created screen recordings twice, each time skipping an aspect of step 2; I wrote:

    > "You did not follow step (2) of my repro steps: Loading a 1 GB file form a Windows file share (network folder)."
    >
    > ...
    >
    > This time you made the file 1 GB, but still do not load it from a Windows file share (network folder). Instead, you are again using your local Downloads folder.

probably just an ai or unskilled triage tech responding?

I think it's the autocomplete in particular that leaks a lot of private data. I've rarely had the combined bar do a search when I didn't want it to.

But I use firefox and I turned off autocomplete. And I use my own search instance (SearXNG)

We had them separated once upon a time. UX was arguably worse.

I had managed to make a old version of Firefox to treat URLs entered in the location bar as relative. In my opinion, this is the reasonable way to work. The computer doesn't have to guess what you mean, and does not have to guess if the TLD is valid. It will do what you typed into the computer; and if it is an error, will display the error message.

For searching, I had done that if you put a colon at first and then the name of the search engine, then it will search.

No, everyone loves it. By everyone I mean the vast majority of the world.

The fact of the matter is most people do not grok addresses, so a dedicated address bar is useless to them. It's bad user interface design that defies what most people can do.

Here's how most people actually use a web browser if they want to go somewhere, say Amazon:

1. Type "amazon".

2. Enter.

3. First result is (probably) amazon.com.

4. Click.

5. ????

6. PROFIT!

In the dark ages this was facilitated by setting the home page to a search engine like Google, changing the address bar to a search bar removes that additional step making it that much easier for the common man.

Is it horrible for security and privacy? Yeah. But you write a web browser for users, not security and privacy nazis.

Right, considering that single-label names (indistinguishable from search queries) have been a thing since WINS/NetBIOS, DHCP suffixing, etc. -- expecting a dot (let alone a dot followed by a public suffix) is bogus.

Adding a trailing / does it as well.

it's the deliberate dumbing down of the computer to the ordinary user, in the name of ease of use.

Whether intentional malice, or unintentional incompetence is moot by now. The effect has already been done.

Also one of the reasons I seriously appreciate Firefox, because you can still have a dedicated search box to the right side of the URL entry field/address bar, and easily reach it by hotkey by command-K on MacOS or other similar shortcuts on Linux, Windows.

The number of times I've typed some internal-only thing or raw IP address into a browser and had it go to a search page instead of the thing I want to talk to, I've lost track of in the past 15 years, and it's too damn high.

example.internal. should also work.

For me it needs additional setting keyword.enabled=false

The other thing I do is disable history. I forget the flag in Firefox (might be places.history.enabled or something). Forward and backward navigation still work per tab, but nothing gets recorded in the history menu. Every once in a while I wished I could go back into my history, but overall I prefer not to leave a log of what pages I've been to.

How?

Is that even possible? I agree that it should be the default behavior.

..maybe I can set up an own mock search service on localhost. Hmph, I will think about it

Nothing stopping you from redirecting a code response redirect from the authorization server. Have a shim server return 302 from `http://localhost/subdomain/oauth?code=...` to `http://subdomain.localhost/oauth?code=...` for example.

I don't think there's an oauth requirement where those don't work and your issue is more likely to be with the provider itself and restrictions they make on http or local domains. I'd either run an nginx proxy to get around http or choose some domains that don't conflict with their local restrictions. You can add whatever domain you want to a hosts file that resolves to your local IP. I leverage this a lot.

Any competent provider should give you some method for local testing and you should work with them given the provider you've chosen.