Hey there,
I recently submitted an add-on which ended up breaking in the standard version of Firefox. I’ve since fixed the issue (or so it appears) and have tested it in the standard version with the help of the add-on debugging.
There was one line of code difference between the old version and the new version I’ve submitted. Is it possible to get an expedited review of this add-on?
Thanks!
It is possible … which one is your addon?
I would also like an expedited review for “I dont care about cookie”. I’ve been waiting since thursday and usually it’s just a matter of hours. Thanks guys!
Your addon contains 224 JS files. While they are mostly a couple of lines, the review interface takes a long time to open and process them and sometimes we get connection timeout.
If you recall, I suggested LONG time ago to combine them all into one file which you disagreed. It will even get worse as you add more sites.
Personally, I would have made the rules into a JSON which not only would have improved the performance of the addon but also speeded up the review process.
Anyway … it is reviewed.
My Add-on is https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/connectedover/
I thought we had things fixed in 1.0.5 but it seems that the problem was bigger. We’ve done some rewriting of the logic to be able to push an update that now works and has been tested within FF Standard debugging but am waiting. As it stands…the Add-on is still in a degraded state.
Thanks for the help , Erosman!
It seems another reviewer has reviewed your addon in the meantime.
Hey Erosman,
Another reviewer did pick it up. We had some security issues that needed to be resolved. We’re at the point now where all the security issues have been fixed and the add-on is working perfectly. If you could help to expedite the review I’d be internally grateful!
Yeah… I disagreed, mostly because I don’t want the data to remain in memory unless really needed (and often those files are not needed at all).
But I will greatly reduce the number of JS files, as there’s a lot of redundancy.
Thank you erosman!
Hi! I have been waiting since nov. 17th for a review and my addon still wasn’t live today. in the mean time i found a bug, removed the addon and uploaded a new one (with a different version number). I also reduced the number of problematic js files. Could I please get one more expedited review please? Otherwise I’d have to wait for several weeks it seems…
Thank you!
@kiboke
I dont have access to it yet … I will try to review it once it is available to me.
I understand … loading all patterns will use more memory but then read local file uses a lot of CPU resources. (write to file is even more CPU intensive)
AFA developing, on the balance, bearing in mind the modern computers with reasonable RAM, I would opt for more memory but faster & less resource-intensive operation. have you checked addon’s memory usage?
I will leave you a suggestion, if I get to review it. 
Suggestion: SWITCH is an extremely fast and efficient selection method. I use it everywhere …lol
Is it possible to ask for review of my new add-on?
I have submitted it for review on November 17th, but it is still on review queue on 77 position. With current speed (it started on position 136) it will not be reviewed this year.
The add-on in question is “browser-signer”. It is fork of signTextJS (https://addons.mozilla.org/bg/firefox/addon/signtextjs/), as later is not updated for Firefox 50 compatibility and looks like it will not be updated anymore. The changes to signTextJS are minimal - added localization and fix for Firefox 50. The add-on is open source and all code is available on github - https://github.com/vbadev/signTextJS.
Addons that use ctypes + nsIX509CertDB etc require extra attention. That is one of the reasons.
Hey Guys,
Just wondering what the process is for getting your extension reviewed in an expedited manner? We’re really dependent on it getting uploaded and its been almost a week I believe since our first submission. Is there an email address or number to call? Thanks!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/addon/seashells-instant-cash-back/It is reviewed now but please note the review point.
I suggest breaking the 11,300+ line files into more manageable parts.
Hi erosman, I understand that my extension uses dangerous APIs, but it is fork of signTextJS, that is already on AMO, and the changes are minimal.
I will wait as long as needed.
Hey @tj_sig - in addition to what erosman said, it’s true that the wait times are longer than usual right now. Our reviewers are trying their best to work through the queue as quickly as possible. If you’d like to help out and join our reviewers group, please take a look at https://wiki.mozilla.org/AMO:Reviewers. Becoming a reviewer is also a great way to get your add-ons fast-tracked for approval.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/zillion-live-screen-sharing/?src=search
Would it be possible to request an expedited review the extension has no code changes but we added 2 new domains to our whitelisting for screen sharing. I apologize for bothering you guys about it but it was a sudden request.
I dont have access to the newly uploaded addons. Once I have access to it I will do it for you.
BTW, you should remove unused files ie:
data/content-script 2.js
build.bat
run.bat
Because of permission issue, my addon does not work at all.
So I submitted fixed version 1.2.4 5mins ago.
Could you help to expedite the review? It is very urgent.
My addon is https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/LINER/
Thanks.
You have uploaded sources… why?
There’s no need to include source code unless your add-on has minified, obfuscated or compiled code. Established libraries do not require inclusion of their sources. Please keep this in mind for the future, since add-ons that include additional sources enter a separate queue and tend to take longer to be reviewed.
It is now in the admin queue and I can not review it. (I am not an admin)
BTW, the following permission is meaningless:
The last one will include the first 2.
"http://*/*", "https://*/*", "*://*/*"
In case you want all included, then using <all_urls> would be the proper way.