Closed Bug 1400902 Opened 8 years ago Closed 8 years ago

[Shield][Admin] Creating new extension with best-proxy switcher AMO add-on bounces off

Categories

(Shield :: General, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: aflorinescu, Assigned: relud)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

[Environment:] Firefox 56.0b12 20170914024831 [Preconditions:] You need access to Admin interface (https://normandy-admin.stage.mozaws.net/control) or New Admin interface (https://normandy-admin.stage.mozaws.net/control-new) 1. Obtain a copy of Firefox with the SHIELD recipe client system add-on installed. You can check about:support to ensure that you have it. 2. Set the extensions.shield-recipe-client.dev_mode preference to true to run recipes immediately on startup. 3. Set the extensions.shield-recipe-client.logging.level preference to 0 to enable more logging. 4. Set the security.content.signature.root_hash preference to DB:74:CE:58:E4:F9:D0:9E:E0:42:36:BE:6C:C5:C4:F6:6A:E7:74:7D:C0:21:42:7A:03:BC:2F:57:0C:8B:9B:90. 5. Set the preference value for extensions.shield-recipe-client.api_url set to https://normandy.stage.mozaws.net/api/v1 [Steps:] 1. Open Firefox. 2. Open https://normandy-admin.stage.mozaws.net/control-new 3. Download the attached add-on. (downloaded from AMO) 4. Click on View all Extensions. 5. Click on New extension. 6. Upload the attached file. 7. Press save. [Actual Result:] The new extension is not saved. [Expected Result:] The new extension should be saved.
Summary: [Shield][Admin] Creating new extension with AMO add-on bounces off → [Shield][Admin] Creating new extension with best-proxy switcher AMO add-on bounces off
The STR above result in the server responding with HTTP 413 Request Entity Too Large, i.e. the add-on is too big. We don't have any explicit policies about add-on size, and this add-on does not appear to be unreasonably sized (at 2.23MB). This is likely a default setting meant to prevent abuse. This same test works as expected in my local environment, which makes me think this is out side of our code. relud: Can you comment on what might be causing these limits?
Flags: needinfo?(dthorn)
probably a result of the client_max_body_size setting in nginx which has a default of 1m http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#client_max_body_size
Flags: needinfo?(dthorn)
Yep, that would do it. We should probably increase that value for the upload url. Can we set this to 100MB for `/api/v2/extension/`? Why 100MB? I have anecdotal evidence of extensions up to 70MB (the b2g simulator). That got uploaded to AMO, and we probably shouldn't be more restrictive than AMO. Plus it is a nice round number.
Assignee: nobody → dthorn
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
I personally have no problem with 100MB, but if we are going to align with AMOs' upload limit, let's make it 200MB ->see bug 1374648.
Thanks for digging this up Adrian. +1 to a 200MB limit.
PR merged. Build #354 will take this to stage, and the next deploy to prod admin will have this.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: