"Preliminary" Review of Unlisted Extension

Add-ons addons.mozilla.org
#1

Three days ago I submitted my unlisted, side-loaded extension for approval for the first time. Yesterday I received a reply from AMO saying:

Your add-on, Sheep Systems Firefox Extension 324, has been reviewed and is now signed and ready for you to download at: https://addons.blah.blah….

I clicked on the link and got this “dashboard”.

I do not see a download link anywhere in there. Furthermore, this “dashboard” says that the review is only preliminarily.

So the email indicates that everything is all done, but the dashboard says that we’re still at, maybe, square 2. Furthermore, the documentation says that there’s no difference between full and preliminary review for unlisted add-ons, which confuses me even more.

My extension includes executable code (a OS X .dylib) so I was expecting someone to ask me for the source code and do a Full Review.

The “dashboard” also says that Full nomination will be available in 10 days. However, the word “nomination” in the documentation refers to featured in the AMO store, so I think I should ignore this. Correct?

In case it is relevant, here is a description of what my extension does.

Did I do something wrong? What do I do next?

Thank you!

Jerry Krinock

#2

Sorry for the confusing terminology, we identified this as being an issue and are currently working on improving this.

You can download your signed add-on by clicking on the version number on the page you called “dashboard”. On the page for that version, you will see a file link at the top.

“Preliminary” is most probably what you want. We realize that term is misleading, so is Full nomination will be available in 10 days. Please note that those terms will be renamed soon. The difference between those two is that only “fully” approved add-ons are allowed to be installed via side-loading. For more information, have a look at the
signing wiki page.

"Preliminary Reviewed" extension still displays "unverified" message on install
#3

Thank you, Andreas. Looks like I got really close to finding the download link, but not quite. So the existing system almost passed the dumb developer test :slight_smile:

I have now download my preliminarily signed extension, and when I File > Open or /usr/bin/open it with Firefox, the popover appears with an Install button that works.

So it looks like I’m done, and also it looks like File > Open or usr/bin/open are not side-loading, as I had assumed. Please consider adding a definition of side-loading to the new improved docs.

The API for code signing will be appreciated, especially since the new system does not allow me to set the maxVersion of Firefox to "999.* as I’ve been doing for years :frowning: Be back in 6 weeks, I suppose.

#4

Valid app versions: https://addons.mozilla.org/pages/appversions/

#5

Add-ons are marked as compatible by default (if they don’t use binary components or the strictCompatbility flag in install.rdf), so you don’t need to worry about that.

#6

Thank you again, Andreas. But my extension does have a binary component (a OS X .dylib), so I think that I do need to come back every six weeks, based on your reply Andreas. Correct?

Every day, I find new rules regarding what extension features trigger what requirements. Preliminary, Full, Strict Compatibility, Type, Binary, Nomination, Side-Loaded. Unless I’ve missed it, I think we need a diagram or flow chart with concise definitions.

#7

Not every six weeks, if you set it far enough ahead. Right now for example if you set it to 43.* It’ll be December 14 before that hits release, and then six weeks after that before release will say it’s no longer compatible. So roughly every 5 months you’ll have to update it.

#8

Thank you, Jerod. Yes, you could game the system like that, if you discount users on Firefox Developer Edition. I might do it, but I’d prefer a nice API for code-signing, and a robot.

#9

Users on Dev Edition have xpinstall.signatures.required which can be toggled. So I’d only worry about Release and Beta (if you care about Beta).