5 ms·

Actually every extension on AMO must go through manual inspection to push as auto update. You may push new version to market without manual inspection. But it w

Actually every extension on AMO must go through manual inspection to push as auto update. You may push new version to market without manual inspection. But it won't auto update to users' computers until then. So human review really isn't the real difference on firefox's side. Because it is required since day one

Semaphor 3y ago
Do you have a source for this? I always thought they long ago stopped manual inspections for most extensions.
- mmis1000 3y ago
  I literally wrote one. And it had been taken down due to reviewer unable to reproduce the achieve I uploaded (it turns out to be a \r\n \n line ending issue. Thanks windows and git).
  - zagrebian 3y ago
    Ok, when adding a new extension to the store. But “recommended extensions” get manually reviewed whenever they update.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    I maintain one as well, and had it approved despite the source having a bug, so that doesn’t sound like much of a source.
    - mmis1000 3y ago
      I don't think they ever care about whether your extension has bug or not. They probably only review whether your extension has weird minified code or dependencies.
      - Semaphor 3y ago
        It was a bug that prevented building it. If they just look at the source code without building it, they’ll have no idea if it’s the same code at all, and it would be useless.
        mmis1000 3y ago
        That's weird. Probably it depends on reviewer? Or probably the reviewer figured out how to compile your source some way? In my experience, the reproducible requirement is always forced.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        See my other comment [0], manual reviews have been optional for a long time. There was quite the outcry when they stopped reviewing everything. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218820
Semaphor 3y ago
> When a developer submits an extension to addons.mozilla.org, it’s scanned for a set of common issues. It may also be subject to human review. -- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tips-assessing-safety-extension https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tips-assessing-safety-e... *May* is important here. That is also what I remembered changing years ago.

Semaphor 3y ago

Do you have a source for this? I always thought they long ago stopped manual inspections for most extensions.

mmis1000 3y ago
I literally wrote one. And it had been taken down due to reviewer unable to reproduce the achieve I uploaded (it turns out to be a \r\n \n line ending issue. Thanks windows and git).
- zagrebian 3y ago
  Ok, when adding a new extension to the store. But “recommended extensions” get manually reviewed whenever they update.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  I maintain one as well, and had it approved despite the source having a bug, so that doesn’t sound like much of a source.
  - mmis1000 3y ago
    I don't think they ever care about whether your extension has bug or not. They probably only review whether your extension has weird minified code or dependencies.
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      It was a bug that prevented building it. If they just look at the source code without building it, they’ll have no idea if it’s the same code at all, and it would be useless.
      - mmis1000 3y ago
        That's weird. Probably it depends on reviewer? Or probably the reviewer figured out how to compile your source some way? In my experience, the reproducible requirement is always forced.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        See my other comment [0], manual reviews have been optional for a long time. There was quite the outcry when they stopped reviewing everything. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218820

Semaphor 3y ago

> When a developer submits an extension to addons.mozilla.org, it’s scanned for a set of common issues. It may also be subject to human review. -- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tips-assessing-safety-extension https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tips-assessing-safety-e... *May* is important here. That is also what I remembered changing years ago.