Ask about exception in review queue - without waiting long time

Add-ons addons.mozilla.org
#1

Hi Mozillas!

I am happy that created add-ons for Firefox are now compatible with Chrome.
Unfortunately I am a bit disappointment, because of review time - i added yesterday add-on to Chrome and Firefox. Today my extension is available in Chrome Store, but it is not the same in Addons For Firefox - my exstension is 150/168 in queue for review. Can you give me estimated date to review my extension?

I have read somewhere that is possible to review addo-ns in other order.
My add-on purpose is make Santa Christmas Day (6 December) more cheerful.
So i need some time for marketing before this day, I would like promote this add-on not only to Chrome, but especially to my daily Internet browser - Firefox.
So please Dear Mozilla Rewiers, Mozilla Coumunity and especially others Add-ons Creators - give me add-on “webopinie” chance to be published before this great day - Santa Christmas Day.

#2

Which addon is it?

#3

Thank you for your interest. Here you are:
https://addons.mozilla.org/pl/firefox/addon/webopinie/

PS. Looking for id of my add-on i have found this link to Firefox Addo-ns, so it is not much worse than in Chrome. But unfortunately it can’t be installed, “because it appears to be corrupt” - tested on the same browser (Firefox Developer Edition 51) by loading temporary add-on and it works during debugging, but can’t be installed by Firefox Add-ons.

#4

Someone will get to it.
Having libraries (especially uncommon ones) means that someone has to go to the site, download and verify the library and then check that library to make sure it is safe to use. That often takes time and sometimes have to be checked by admin, if the library has security concerns.

#5

Thanks erosman for help. I will be remember and will try contribute to Mozilla Community in future.

#6

Still in queue - 142 position.

I use this js libraries:

http://www.jacklmoore.com/autosize


and jquery-3.1.1.min.js

and never don’t use eval() function.
If you can tell me which library cause problem of “it appears to be corrupt”.
I can get their code to content script.

#7

There wasnt a mention of “it appears to be corrupt” AFA review is concerned.

I had a very quick look…

autosize.min.js
Someone has to go through the unminified code to make sure it is safe and then compare the minified version on the source to the version on the addon. That takes time.

Once that is done, future upgrade would be a lot easier (subject that there are no changes to the library).

libs/jquery-3.1.1.min.js is fine and matches the hash of the original, so it not checked.

This shouldn’t really be there. It is for IE and it causes remote script flags
<!--[if lt IE 9]><script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="//html5shim.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/html5.js"></script><![endif]-->

Addon is sending private data to a remote server over HTTP which is a security concern.

Addon is using String to DOM conversion and if the data is remote and unsanizted, it will be rejected.

Addon should include fonts as fonts and not long strings of data:application/x-font-woff

I hope that helps

#8

Thank you for great tips.
I undestand, that Mozilla has such restrictions and will try fit my addon to Firefox requirements.
So I will leave autosize.min.js and wait. I can also use unminified version - if you prefer this.

<!--[if lt IE 9]><script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="//html5shim.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/html5.js"></script><![endif]-->
was in demo.html of fontello library - so I have removed this file.

Yes, add-on send private data (but not sensitive - only addon form and url of http site). If this is still problem i will buy and configure ssl certificate.

Yes, Addon inserts html into page content. I will change it to rendering json sanitized data.

And fonts as fonts.

and maby somehting else - ok, enaugh for now :slight_smile:
After this - do i have upload new version?

#9

It is up to you…

You can wait for the review but then it may take sometime and I dont know the outcome.
It could be better to upload a better version with LESS issues.
Note: A new upload must have a higher version number or it will be rejected.

Autosize is rather small so I would suggest using the unminified version. It can then possibly be checked without having to go to the source and compare and etc

For large libraries and established ones like JQuery, I would suggest minified version since they are very large and we only check to see if it matches the original.

Remove any test files, if any.

Fonts: When including libraries/packages, please only include the files that are needed and used by the addon, instead of including the entire package.

#10

Thanks again, i will try load a new version (1.1) in Monday.
Have a nice weekend.

#11

OK. I have uploaded new version (1.1).
Nice if somebody will check if all is nice this time.

#12

Well, you added a new minified file and a request has been sent for the source.
This one (libs/nunjucks.min.js) is much larger and may have to be checked by admin so it may take even longer.

#13

OK. I undestand.
This library is from Mozilla repo, so should not generate problems.


But, of course, must be checked by admin - no much problem.

Is the highest time to start media campaign for plugin so for now I have to public only Chrome addon and inform users on the page, that Firefox addon is in review progress and will be available soon.

#14

101 in queue.
Admin, please check mozilla/nunjucks.js

#15

Admin, please make preogress - stil 101 in queue.

#16

Hi erosman,
Do you know when the admin check libs/nunjucks.min.js library?
The source is from Mozilla repo:


so checking it should be very easy.
Please help to pass through this bottleneck as speed as possible,

#17

Sorry, I dont know and with the coming holidays, queues are likely to get more complicated.

I dont know if that is related to Mozilla or not and if they have been vetted for an addon or not.

#18

OK, Thanks all the same.