# \[Blog post\] Updates to Add-on Review Policies

**URL:** <https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296>\
**Category:** Announcements\
**Created:** [March 5, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296 "2018-03-05T16:21:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TheOne](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/theone/32/49872_2.png) [@TheOne](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/TheOne)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/1 "2018-03-05T16:21:58Z")

</div>

We announced updates to our add-on review policies:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/03/05/updates-add-review-policies/](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/03/05/updates-add-review-policies/)

If you have questions about the updated policies or would like to provide feedback, feel free to reply here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![freaktechnik](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/freaktechnik/32/37766_2.png) [@freaktechnik](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/freaktechnik)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2018, 1:32pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/2 "2018-03-06T13:32:18Z")

</div>

Do I understand the changes correctly, as that some things that you _should_ have been doing, you now _must_ do?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TheOne](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/theone/32/49872_2.png) [@TheOne](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/TheOne)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2018, 4:43pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/3 "2018-03-06T16:43:16Z")

</div>

> [@freaktechnik](#):
>
> Do I understand the changes correctly, as that some things that you should have been doing, you now must do?

We clarified lots of the guidelines that were more vaguely defined in the previous policies document. Some of the points we have been requiring for a while.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lance\_Menard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cdc98d/32.png) [@Lance\_Menard](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/Lance_Menard)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2018, 3:40pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/4 "2018-03-07T15:40:19Z")

</div>

I can see one potential issue coming up with the process we use for our extensions: we submit our add-ons to AMO through the API, but as far as I can tell, there is no method for submitting source code through that same API. We’ve been uploading the source code manually after we use the API to submit a new version (which also defeats some of the purpose of using the API in the first place). How will that process work if source code is now _required_ during submission? Is there any plan to add the ability to upload sources through the API, or does that ability exist and I just don’t know about it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TheOne](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/theone/32/49872_2.png) [@TheOne](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/TheOne)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 3:00pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/5 "2018-03-14T15:00:48Z")

</div>

Sorry for the delay, I was out.

I can see that this would be handy. I don’t know whether there are any immediate plans to add that. Maybe @jorgev knows.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jorgev](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@jorgev](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/jorgev)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/6 "2018-03-14T16:14:29Z")

</div>

There are no plans for that at present, though it makes sense so that the API is consistent with the policy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![grahamperrin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/grahamperrin/32/17266_2.png) [@grahamperrin](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/grahamperrin)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/7 "2018-03-25T21:21:44Z")

</div>

Probably not a _policy_ question, but here goes …

Reading this topic alongside [New MDN browser compatibility tables](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/new-mdn-browser-compatibility-tables/24747) … will any part of a review process involve automated checking against the (beta) tables?

> **[Browser support for JavaScript APIs - Mozilla | MDN](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs)**
>
> The MDN Web Docs site provides information about Open Web technologies including HTML, CSS, and APIs for both Web sites and progressive web apps.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jorgev](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@jorgev](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/jorgev)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2018, 11:47pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/8 "2018-03-27T23:47:58Z")

</div>

There is some automatic testing of manifest flags against supported APIs, but I’m not sure which Firefox channel is used for validation. I’d be surprised that APIs that are currently in Beta aren’t being accepted.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![grahamperrin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/grahamperrin/32/17266_2.png) [@grahamperrin](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/grahamperrin)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2018, 12:50pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/blog-post-updates-to-add-on-review-policies/26296/9 "2018-04-13T12:50:15Z")

</div>

> - The add-on listing should have an easy-to-read description about everything it does, and any information it collects. …

Maybe there should be an automated flag when the text for ‘About this extension’ is an exact copy of the short summary line. Where the text is so terse, it’s likely that the developer is not properly describing the extension.

Examples:

- [https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/annotons-nos-contenus/](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/annotons-nos-contenus/) for example ([captured](https://web.archive.org/web/20180413125055/https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/annotons-nos-contenus/))
- [XBurster – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox (en-US)](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/xburster/)