Waiting for review since November 2014

Add-ons addons.mozilla.org
#1

Hi Mozilla!

Our add-on is waiting for review since November 2014. Today it is 211 days since I’ve uploaded version last time and we are still waiting for somebody to review it. And it is more than a year since we have uploaded add-on the first time.

What I fear the most is that our add-on could be rejected again and we will have to wait one more year.

I’ll tell the whole history, I hope it may be helpful to other add-on developers.

First time I’ve uploaded the add-on more than a year ago, June 6, 2014.
I was young and inexperienced so I’ve made some silly mistakes in it:

  1. Using innerHTML. Also do not use jQuery.html or your add-on will be rejected!
  2. Using wrong libraries versions. Include only releases of libraries obtained from official sources in their original, unmodified files. Add-on was once rejected because jquery version was in UTF-8 with BOM (while original version is without BOM).
  3. Mixing SDK and overlay extensions.

This review iteration has taken 46 days (as I understand now it was very fast).

Next two times add-on was rejected because of libraries hashes mismatch until we’ve finally got the link to AMO libs hashes. Don’t forget to check the libraries you include against these hashes.
http://mzl.la/amo-libs

Some more useful notes:

  1. Use Object.create rather than object literals;
  2. Use built-in promise instead of some other version for a third-party library.

Add-on link:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adguard-adblocker/

#2

I don’t see the question, you appear to have been reviewed and failed several times. I’d suggest reading their guide: https://wiki.mozilla.org/AMO/Reviewers/Guide/Reviewing

Make sure it can pass everything on there and you should be good.

#3

The question is simple - is there any way to speed up the review process?
It’s just 211 days is a bit too much:)

#4

It wasn’t 211 days. That’s how long because your addon keeps failing the review.

#5

Hm, maybe I didn’t get it right, but as I see it in addons panel:
Last Updated: Nov 24, 2014

Do you mean there were any failed reviews after that?
Or maybe you mean this delay is caused by several failures before?

#6

Unless I misunderstood you. When was the last time you had any contact with your reviewer?

#7

November 15

#8

What did they say?

#9

Ops, I am wrong, I’ve contacted reviewer one more time in December.

He insisted that we should use “sdk/system/events” and “sdk/ui/button/toggle” modules instead of observer service and CustomizableUI module. Thus we could not support some FF-based browsers like Palemoon. But ok, we’ve made two versions of the add-on, one for legacy browsers and one for amo.

Last time I’ve contacted him in December, let him know that we’ve uploaded newer version to amo.

#10

Above you said it says Last Updated: Nov 24, 2014. It sounds like your newest version didn’t upload properly. I’d suggest trying to reupload your latest version.

#11

Last updated date does not change when I upload new version.
I’ve uploaded 6 versions after that.

#12

Also as I see it does not affect queue position too. I mean current queue position is 9 and it does not change for several months.

#13

Yeah the queue seems to be bad. I’ve not even had a response in weeks when I applied to be a reviewer. My suggestion would be to email amo-editors AT mozilla DOT org and hope to get a reply there about it, something seems fouled up a bit.

#14

Thanks for the advice!

Just worrying about this new add-on signing feature. Currently most part of our users use standalone xpi instead of amo version. If there’s no chance of getting add-on reviewed before FF 40 goes to beta, we should do something with it, change add-on id or make it private to get it signed quickly.

#15

Apparently that happens automatically upon upload. It doesn’t even need to pass a preliminary review, just their automated maliciousness review. As far as I can tell from what they’ve said, it should be signed already.

#16

Thanks again! I guess I should have read more about signing feature before:).

It looks like anyway we have to change add-on ID for the standalone xpi to get it signed AND to continue using our own update url there.