[Blog post] Updates to Add-on Review Policies

We announced updates to our add-on review policies:


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


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.

1 Like

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?

1 Like

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.

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

Probably not a policy question, but here goes …

Reading this topic alongside New MDN browser compatibility tables … will any part of a review process involve automated checking against the (beta) tables?


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.

1 Like
  • 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.