1165658 - AMO is apparently flagging bootstrap.js for using Components

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Add-on SDK Graveyard :: General, defect)

Description

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

Saw someone post in #jetpack today and no one was around to reply, so they posted to the AMO forums instead at https://forums.mozilla.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=25347

From the sounds of things, someone from the SDK team needs to update the AMO validator for whatever version of the SDK is being used via npm-installed jpm. Or maybe they're using a non-official release of the SDK, so this flagging is intentional and correct. I don't know. Filing this for now so someone actually on the SDK team can look into it.

Comment 1

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

This was how I updated it back in the day when I was in charge of SDK releases: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Jetpack/Release_Process#Update_AMO_Validator

I think that'd still work?

Comment 2

[Daniel Convissor]

Wes, thanks for opening this ticket.  I'll add the relevant information here so it's all in one place.

Obtained jpm 1.0.0 from npm yesterday. Ran "jpm xpi" to create a very simple plugin (source here: https://github.com/convissor/toggle-system-colors/blob/master/index.js).  Upon uploading that xpi to the Mozilla add-ons site, the validator says:

  Warning: Access to the `Components` property is deprecated for security or other reasons.
  bootstrap.js
  6  const { utils: Cu } = Components;
  7  const rootURI = __SCRIPT_URI_SPEC__.replace("bootstrap.js", "");

Comment 4

[Erik Vold [:erikvold] (please needinfo? me)]

Hey Kris, any idea if this is an issue?

Comment 5

[Kris Maglione [:kmag]]

It's not a big deal. I'd prefer to have a checksum for this so there are no warnings, but the file is simple enough that it shouldn't cause any headaches for reviewers.

And at the moment, I really do not want to manually add any more checksums while there's already a finished patch that completely solves this and many other problems.

Comment 6

[Erik Vold [:erikvold] (please needinfo? me)]

I think we can ignore this then, amo reviewers shouldn't be rejecting due to this right?

Comment 7

[Kris Maglione [:kmag]]

They should not be rejecting for this, no. They should never be rejecting for that message.