Big source files stop approval process

bennybeast · September 24, 2017, 6:00pm

The extensions in AMO get a human review so they may have a higher quality and less malware.

It also seam as if extensions for FF is intended to be small simple tools. I have now 2 times tried to get the same add-on approved and it is rejected for the same primary reason - the source files are too big for a review. Also other reasons the first time as I did not understand the process/tool to begin with. They demand that I make specific js files smaller and it is not possible as it is a library like jquery from github. How many people remove functions from jquery they do not use? It is also a very time consuming and dangerous process to remove functions from a standard library that is not used (can be referenced many unknown places).

It is also impossible to pass if if you have shared library files that is not used in the extension. The library files are shared between a browser/desktop version, an addon and cordova mobile versions. It is true that all files are not needed for every version. But why do I need to remove them as it is clearly stated the files that are used in the manifest file - just size issues?

The process is so slow. The first look by a reviewer takes aprox. 6 weeks, then it may take a long time before any reply to my reply regarding the rejection. Here the last time there have been no reply for 2 weeks.

In hope for an explanation or some sort of improvements?

/Benny

erosman · September 24, 2017, 8:10pm

JQuery is fine and many people include libraries.

Minified version are better for known libraries as their hash is only checked.

github.com

mozilla/amo-validator/blob/master/validator/testcases/hashes-allowed.txt

3ca7274302353b8386c230cfed846b122a97fe60a611ff73e88a657d56cc3a3b angularjs.1.6.6.angular.js
35f73a70cca067828be9e0a712b8b48908e1bc4490637c62bd70158f95cd6e27 angularjs.1.6.6.angular.min.js
918b67113f134ec866265fb26365dc1497c88af997f75bbd70ef8450ca7658e6 backbone.1.0.0.backbone-min.js
2ebbacdc8393dac4ce1d4cfbb8eb1957ba7bd7811fa7bed67c94a4a1193a78f3 backbone.1.0.0.backbone.js
453ec40e1cf3ecc3309a6a5bbf0ae555ee2f5f80075e48e86ce37dc247dc135c backbone.1.1.0.backbone-min.js
5a36cd2b29bc952610f3d8689348056a9a0658014552d77eb47b23bc0f3350a8 backbone.1.1.0.backbone.js
06fac5a66f26137240f94bef2fc0d15f75fa2effe8aec8929b04eb60e6017436 backbone.1.1.1.backbone-min.js
f5f741e7991113473236eb4da601cd50b44bdaea52f3b792a481c588bcd901a4 backbone.1.1.1.backbone.js
75d28344b1b83b5fb153fc5939bdc10b404a754d93f78f7c1c8a8b81de376825 backbone.1.1.2.backbone-min.js
0977290d5e68ce40d516cd4dc3965586680024e51399f0ee54ee8ed3a99b1506 backbone.1.1.2.backbone.js
e2880d9b382972780cbd99f9873c4fdf06618b36a8a3666bdb9d895845816f40 backbone.1.2.0.backbone-min.js
4ac1c9ebee6ebcd1614a8f92d41cb270e61e0b8f61c804c0d1b26fda4b889824 backbone.1.2.0.backbone.js
a593ba9f6e85ce030c59fd367c88b624d267b2a8d895fc7b3dcec52cc5137084 backbone.1.2.1.backbone-min.js
c27c8ad6ec8e148ed22a32035d67582e6affcdfa234e2cb2fac6611dbfd1781a backbone.1.2.1.backbone.js
a7a6e47c5aa6c6d79baca392fb0c868be41fdddd75d5e59440febb91ec9727a4 backbone.1.2.2.backbone-min.js
0b505a72e89152018c40056b6dd713668f96dbf508c0930e6ce7302cb7acfd88 backbone.1.2.2.backbone.js
c3ca23012efd03572816f91fb7addce549b1c9a327703f47735d153db22365fe backbone.1.2.3.backbone-min.js
3dd6732dfa24d1d79279ab81672b2092604b543489af42c7eba281f990c0cc43 backbone.1.2.3.backbone.js
1d9d21d7b55593465f76af4bd0572f414cec6f1e9acbe0a3e1780361b8243daf backbone.1.3.1.backbone-min.js
b432f5da40a1a53b029f51a42aa99ac21bc602d9af942836f8c7b70d3d74da74 backbone.1.3.1.backbone.js

This file has been truncated. show original

If you give me the URL of your addon, I will have a look.

bennybeast · September 25, 2017, 4:44am

bennybeast · September 25, 2017, 4:50am

My experience for the review process is that anything not quite standard makes the review process choke/stop.

https://addons.mozilla.org/da/developers/addon/pcrypt

erosman · September 25, 2017, 9:28am

Addons with minified, binary code have to be checked by an admin reviewer and there are few admins so they take longer.

Your addon is in admin queue.

bennybeast · September 25, 2017, 4:35pm

But I have provided the complete non minified code?
Actually the code is still possible to read as only comments have been removed and internal variables have been shorten. Line break, function names etc is still there.

erosman · September 26, 2017, 5:06am

This is only a suggestion, since I am not an admin to review your addon.

Minified code is a code that is hard to read …it is not only the line breaks and spaces.

e[f][0].call(a.exports,function(t){var r=e[f][1][t];
	return d(r?r:t)},a,a.exports,i,e,t,r)};

It is very difficult to track where e comes from and where it goes.

These are very similar and one is not unminified version of the other.
elliptic.js
elliptic.min.js

These makes it take longer to review.

bennybeast · September 27, 2017, 4:40am

The complete non minified have been provided!

I just think that there are room for improvements in the process - like to see Mozilla with the best overall browser experience

bennybeast · October 12, 2017, 4:30am

Still no review reaction about my addon reply - is this normal ???

erosman · October 12, 2017, 6:46am

It is in Admin review queue and only they can answer it.

bennybeast · October 12, 2017, 7:12am

But how do I contact them - they have not made any sort of answer to my reply?

erosman · October 12, 2017, 7:18am

You can reach admin reviewers on IRC #addon-reviewers

beast.dk · January 5, 2018, 4:29pm

Nobody seam to look or care when I write at: https://addons.mozilla.org/da/developers/addon/pcrypt/ ??

erosman · January 5, 2018, 7:48pm

You should list the AMO page, not the add-on’s edit page
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/pcrypt/

Admins were off during the Holidays.
From what I can see, add-on had been rejected. You would need to upload a new version so that it could be reviewed (by Admin).

beast.dk · January 6, 2018, 9:53am

I think the process need a big update. It is not clear to me that it has been rejected.
It is stated nowhere as far as I can see. It is just deactivated and there is a communication going on in a thread that moderators simply stop to reply on at some point.

Make it clear to the developer that he need to make a new version and upload everything again.

In my case this is not needed as far as I can see - so I will just upload the same version again

erosman · January 6, 2018, 10:38am

It was Rejected By Bogdan Matei on Sept. 14, 2017, 3:36 p.m.

You should have received the email for it.

You can also view them on Developer Hub -> edit your add-on -> Manage Status & Versions -> Versions -> Review History

beast.dk · January 6, 2018, 12:42pm

It does not say anything like that. It say it didn’t pass review because of the following problems… In my view this is not a sign to me that I have to send in everything again and start the process over again.

I answered to the issues stated and then believe that I will get some sort of reply and it will be taken up again as there is no changes to the source files needed as far as I can tell.

I know everyone is busy - but trust me when I say that the process is not so clear cut to people that are not familiar with the process.

erosman · January 6, 2018, 12:32pm

Maybe @jorgev can answer your question better.

jorgev · January 9, 2018, 6:13pm

It looks like the reviewer should have responded to it but didn’t. It’s been flagged for admin review now, @TheOne or @mozkewisch can follow up with you on this.

mozkewisch · January 9, 2018, 7:41pm

Hi Benny, I’m sorry you are experiencing difficulties with the review process. It is true that large files are a challenge to review manually. In your case, it seems that these files are part of a third party library. We allow third party libraries as long as they comply with our policies, provided we are made aware where the library is from. In fact, we prefer the unmodified original libraries, I’m sure there was a misunderstanding.

With the correct links, we can apply the Source Code Submission process and ensure the library is safe, without re-reviewing thousands lines of code we may have already seen before in case the library bundles other files.

I’ve replied via reviewer tools and hope things are more clear now. If you have further questions please get back to me via the reviewer tools and I will reply as soon as possible.