Use and enforce gecko directive in add-ons manifest.json

REOPENED
Unassigned

Status

Firefox OS
General
REOPENED
2 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: ddurst, Unassigned)

Tracking

unspecified
ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)

Firefox Tracking Flags

(feature-b2g:2.5?)

Details

(Reporter)

Description

2 years ago
Per https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Packaging_2, the gecko directive includes strict_min_version and strict_max_version. But these are not currently specified for add-ons that install successfully.

As Marketplace is going to implement version compatibility, this should be supported/enabled by Firefox OS in order to pass QA for 2.5.

Marking this P1 because of timeline. Marking as normal only because I'm uncomfortable marking it as major (though I suspect QA would opt for that).
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Severity: major → normal
Bill, do we do this check on desktop? I could not find anything. If not, should we make startup() fail if the versions do not match?
Flags: needinfo?(wmccloskey)
strict_min_version and strict_max_version would be optional fields (effectively the absence of strict_min_version implies 2.5)
mass-flag feature-b2g
feature-b2g: --- → 2.5+

Updated

2 years ago
feature-b2g: 2.5+ → 2.5?
(In reply to Andrew Williamson [:eviljeff] from comment #2)
> strict_min_version and strict_max_version would be optional fields
> (effectively the absence of strict_min_version implies 2.5)

In the doc these are gecko version number, not FxOS version (which makes total sense). Should the absence of strict_min_version or strict_max_version mean that we ignore the constraint?
(In reply to [:fabrice] Fabrice Desré from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Williamson [:eviljeff] from comment #2)
> > strict_min_version and strict_max_version would be optional fields
> > (effectively the absence of strict_min_version implies 2.5)
> 
> In the doc these are gecko version number, not FxOS version (which makes
> total sense). 

Whoops, forgot about that.  Whatever gecko 2.5 will launch with then (44?)

> Should the absence of strict_min_version or strict_max_version
> mean that we ignore the constraint?

which constraint?
If strict_min_version is missing, we ignore it, ditto for strict_max_version.
(Reporter)

Comment 7

2 years ago
I assume this has always been part of the UA String conversation as well (meaning: we would really want the Gecko version). Better to just call it what it is?
No, we don't support these fields yet. That's bug 1192437. I'd like to do it through the add-on manager on desktop. Otherwise we'd end up with an installed add-on that never starts up.
Flags: needinfo?(wmccloskey)
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Priority: P1 → --
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
No longer blocks: 1195470
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 2 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(Reporter)

Comment 9

2 years ago
(Sorry! Not my bug. I was on autopilot.)
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.