Comments on: Add-on Verification Suite is on AMO

By: Eric Jung

Eric Jung — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:12:11 +0000

Nevermind, I filed:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513940

By: Eric Jung

Eric Jung — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:08:38 +0000

We need a “Verification” component in bugzilla under the addons.mozilla.org product. In the meantime, can we add a reg exp to check for the string:

.*\.setCharPref(\”.*\@site\.update\.url\”.* (reg exp untested)

This will match, for example:

prefs.setCharPref(“extensions.sample@site.update.url”, “http://badsite.com”);

See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382708

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:10:51 +0000

Nice tool, but it complains about “launch”, even when I’m using the launch() method of Components.classes["@mozilla.org/file/local;1"].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsILocalFile).

By: Goofy

Goofy — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:01:53 +0000

may I suggest a test to check for hardcoded user interface strings?
Or more simply a detection of the absence of locale support, triggering something like “It seems your extension has no locale support. Though it is no big issue, it is recommended to have at least one en-US locale subfolder for your user interface strings”
(and a link to appropriate documentation)

TIA

By: Wil Clouser

Wil Clouser — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:08:17 +0000

Thanks Alfred. I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509427

By: Alfred Kayser

Alfred Kayser — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:48:44 +0000

Note that the verification suite generates lots of false hits on themes:
Things like:
chrome/littlefox.jar/browser/feedview.css (39) : Matched Pattern: “/-moz-binding:(?!\s*url\s*\(\s*["']?chrome:\/\/.*\/content\/)/”
and:
chrome.manifest (1) : Matched Pattern: “/^(?!(#|skin |style ))/”
are actually OK for themes.

So, the suite needs to be more tuned to Themes as well.

Other than that, this is a nice addition to the developers toolkit!

By: Wil Clouser

Wil Clouser — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:59:31 +0000

1. Would be awesome (probably impossible) to simulate running/testing an add-on on various OS’s. Many to most developers only use or have access to one OS.

Yeah, that would be difficult. We’re looking into VMs for editors to be able to test add-ons on, and we’re looking at some other automated testing like memory leak stuff. Nothing jumps to mind on how to install in multiple OSs with this tool and then actually use the add-on to see if it works. There are just too many variables for each add-on to be able to test functionality.

2. How about the option to add an AMO validation badge/button to an add-on’s page?

That’s an interesting idea. We could even make it automatically show up on the add-on page if there are no warnings/errors. I’m a little concerned that false positives with the current setup will mean “oh well” but will cause some discontent if we started doing public promotions like that.

By: Ken Saunders

Ken Saunders — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:33:02 +0000

Coolness.

1. Would be awesome (probably impossible) to simulate running/testing an add-on on various OS’s. Many to most developers only use or have access to one OS.

2. How about the option to add an AMO validation badge/button to an add-on’s page?

By: Bob Davies

Bob Davies — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:49:06 +0000

This is fantastic, great job guys, thanks.

I noticed /eval/ also matches for evalInSandbox().

By: Wil Clouser

Wil Clouser — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:27:53 +0000

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I’ve filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509038 about the eval regex – yeah, it’s a little broad.

And https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509039 about the install.js + SeaMonkey.