1172160 - allow self-hosted addons supporting "[e-mail]" to be signed (AMO hosting needs specific applications; unhosted signing shouldn't)

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Developer Pages, defect)

Description

[Simon Bünzli]

I've tried to upload self-hosted http://mozilla.zeniko.ch/keymapper.xpi to AMO for automated signing as unlisted extension. The addon successfully validates (except for bug 1172158) but then results in the unexplained warning "Sorry, no supported platform has been found.", even though "All platforms" was checked prior to uploading the file.

Could this happen due to the extension targeting all Gecko applications through the app ID "[e-mail]" instead of specifically listing Firefox et al.?

Potentially related: Checking "Submit my add-on for manual review." and clicking "Continue" causes the page to be reloaded with the entire form cleared and the message "Need at least one platform." (i.e. it's once again at step 2 instead of the expected next step in the process).

Comment 1

[Dave Garrett]

If it's not in this list, it's not AMO supported:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/appversions/

(In reply to Simon Bünzli from comment #0)
> Could this happen due to the extension targeting all Gecko applications
> through the app ID "[e-mail]" instead of specifically listing
> Firefox et al.?

That's almost certainly the case. To host on AMO you need to support one of the known application IDs so it knows where to list it on the site. For self-hosted signing, I don't think this is relevant and the upload validator shouldn't care.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Install_Manifests#targetApplication

Comment 2

[Dave Garrett]

As a workaround, you could probably just put both Firefox and Toolkit entries in there.

Comment 3

[Kris Maglione [:kmag]]

AMO has never supported [e-mail] without accompanying compatibility declarations for specific apps. You'll need to explicitly indicate support for Firefox.

It may be worth considering adding support, but that's an issue unrelated to signing, and one which I'd consider very low priority.

(In reply to Dave Garrett from comment #1)
> For self-hosted signing, I don't think this is relevant and 
> the upload validator shouldn't care.

It is relevant. We only sign add-ons which target Firefox, and support is determined in the same way for unlisted add-ons as it is for listed add-ons.