# AddOn Beta/Test versions?

**URL:** <https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373>\
**Category:** Add-ons\
**Created:** [December 18, 2020, 10:32am UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373 "2020-12-18T10:32:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Offerel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/54ee81/32.png) [@Offerel](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/Offerel)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2020, 10:32am UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/1 "2020-12-18T10:32:36Z")

</div>

Is there a way to upload a version of a released AddOn to AMO and mark it as a beta or testversion? The usecase should be, that someone can install this testversion to test the actual behavior, without impact to standard version numbering or make the standard version auto-updating for end-users?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![caitlin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/caitlin/32/6091_2.png) [@caitlin](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/caitlin)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2020, 4:34pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/2 "2020-12-18T16:34:03Z")

</div>

Hi @Offerel! There isn’t a dedicated beta channel on AMO. We have some tips for setting up a pre-release test channel on [Firefox Extension Workshop](https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/distribute-pre-release-versions/).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Offerel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/54ee81/32.png) [@Offerel](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/Offerel)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 2020, 4:02pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/3 "2020-12-19T16:02:53Z")

</div>

Nice. Many thx for that tip.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rokejulianlockhart](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/rokejulianlockhart/32/66256_2.png) [@rokejulianlockhart](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/rokejulianlockhart)\
**Post date:** [January 28, 2025, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/4 "2025-01-28T14:30:54Z")

</div>

> [@caitlin](#):
>
> There isn’t a dedicated beta channel on AMO.

@caitlin, does that mean that the current answers \[1\] to the undermentioned are accurate?

> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64750043/how-to-publish-extension-on-firefox-in-beta-version>

I ask because like how I can utilize beta channels in the Google Play Store to use updates to trusted applications that I otherwise would need to utilize Obtanium or F-Droid to acquire due to how long those updates sit in Google’s validation pipeline, I get updates to from the Chrome Web Store weeks quicker than I do on AMO.

* * *

1. [`stackoverflow.com/revisions/64774533/1`](https://stackoverflow.com/revisions/64774533/1#:~:text=AMO%20(addons.mozilla.org)%20no%20longer%20accepts%20beta%20versions%20for%20listed%20publication.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dotproto](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/dotproto/32/62957_2.png) [@dotproto](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/dotproto)\
**Post date:** [January 28, 2025, 9:10pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/5 "2025-01-28T21:10:38Z")

</div>

@erosman’s [comment on StackOverflow](https://stackoverflow.com/a/64774533) is correct. I’ve included it below for historical purposes.

> AMO ([addons.mozilla.org](http://addons.mozilla.org)) no longer accepts beta versions for listed publication. You can upload your add-on as **unlisted** which means it can be signed and installed for testing.
> 
> Unlisted add-ons will have to be distributed by the developers.

AMO does not have a direct equivalent to [Google Play’s testing tracks](https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9845334). The closest thing we have is self distribution. See [Distributing an add-on yourself](https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/self-distribution/) for more information.

If you choose to distribute an extension yourself, you will also need to [set the `update_url`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/browser_specific_settings#update_url) in your extension’s `manifest.json` file and host a JSON update manifest on your web server.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rokejulianlockhart](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/rokejulianlockhart/32/66256_2.png) [@rokejulianlockhart](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/rokejulianlockhart)\
**Post date:** [January 28, 2025, 9:27pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/6 "2025-01-28T21:27:27Z")

</div>

> [@dotproto](#):
>
> AMO does not have a direct equivalent to [Google Play’s testing tracks](https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9845334). The closest thing we have is self distribution.

@dotproto, thanks. I’ve filed the undermentioned to see whether improving that is desirable:

> <https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/15310#issue-2816744432>
>
> \### Description
> 
> 1.	#### Proposition
> 
> An example of a similar FR is https://git…hub.com/mozilla/addons/issues/14849#issue-2357080569, a counterpart of which – https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/14853#issue-2357238301 – requests, identically, that versions be publishable without review nor wait:
> 
> \> Versions in the enterprise channel should be auto-approved, \*and\* scanner actions (like flagging, auto-approval delays) should never be triggered for them.
> 
> 1.	#### Rationale
> 
> As stated at \[\`discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/4\`\](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/addon-beta-test-versions/72373/4?u=rokejulianlockhart):
> 
> \> I ask because like how I can utilize beta channels in the Google Play Store to use updates to trusted applications that I otherwise would need to utilize Obtanium or F-Droid to acquire due to how long those updates sit in Google’s validation pipeline, I get updates to from the Chrome Web Store weeks quicker than I do on AMO.
> 
> 1.	#### Maintainability
> 
> However, per https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/14849#issue-2357080569, I wonder whether your channel identification system is flexible enough:
> 
> \> We should record it as a new channel (value \`3\`, since \`1\` and \`2\` are taken by unlisted/listed).
> 
> I would have expected this to be represented more in the manner undermentioned:
> 
> ~~~YAML
> Channels:
> - Newness:
> - 0 (Stable)
> - 1 (Beta)
> - 2 (Alpha)
> - Enterprise
> ~~~
> 
> ...than with numeric identifiers:
> 
> ~~~YAML
> Channels: \[1, 2, 3, 4, 5\]
> ~~~
> 
> \### Acceptance Criteria
> 
> \`\`\`\[tasklist\]
> ### Milestones/checkpoints
> - \[\] Extension publishers can publish versions to a beta and/or alpha (etcetera) channel without delay.
> \`\`\`
> 
> 
> \### Checks
> 
> \- \[x\] If I have identified that the work is specific to a repository, I have removed "repository:addons-server" or "repository:addons-frontend"
> 
> ┆Issue is synchronized with this \[Jira Task\](https://mozilla-hub.atlassian.net/browse/AMOENG-1383)