Big source files stop approval process

(Benny Nissen) #1

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?


(erosman) #2

JQuery is fine and many people include libraries.

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

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

(Benny Nissen) #3

(Benny Nissen) #4

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

(erosman) #5

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.

(Benny Nissen) #6

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) #7

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.

These makes it take longer to review.

(Benny Nissen) #8

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 :slight_smile:

(Benny Nissen) #9

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

(erosman) #10

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

(Benny Nissen) #11

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

(erosman) #12

You can reach admin reviewers on IRC #addon-reviewers

(Benny) #13

Nobody seam to look or care when I write at: ??

(erosman) #14

You should list the AMO page, not the add-on’s edit page

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).

(Benny) #15

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 :wink:

(erosman) #16

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

(Benny) #17

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) #18

Maybe @jorgev can answer your question better.

(Jorge) #19

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

(Philipp Kewisch) #20

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.