Closed Bug 1403514 Opened 3 years ago Closed 3 years ago

remove requirement to sign web extensions from the tree


(Testing :: Talos, enhancement)

Not set


(firefox59 fixed)

Tracking Status
firefox59 --- fixed


(Reporter: jmaher, Assigned: rwood)


(Whiteboard: [PI:January])


(1 file)

in talos we have webextensions as a .xpi and signed, when pointing to the source code, our _webext numbers improved a lot, I suspect we are not installing the webext from raw files.

Once we figure this out, we can have talos with a streamlined development process.
Whiteboard: [PI:October] → [PI:November]
the next step here is to test on try if we can run _webext tests without a signed copy
Whiteboard: [PI:November] → [PI:December]
Whiteboard: [PI:December] → [PI:January]
Assignee: nobody → rwood
Attachment #8942291 - Flags: review?(jmaher)
As you suspected :jmaher, the talos dummy webext isn't loading... I confirmed it by opening a new browser window while tp5o_webext was running and checked about:addons as you suggested. Only the talos pageloader addon and talos powers were loaded.
Hi Bob! Our talos 'dummy' web extension loads and works as long as we use the signed version. If we try to use the unsigned version (like in the patch above in comment 3) it doesn't load at all.

How can we run our unsigned version of our web extension? Are there some prefs we need to set first maybe? Thanks :)

This is the code where we actually install the extension:
Flags: needinfo?(bob.silverberg)
There is a pref that can be set to allow unsigned extensions to be installed, which is `xpinstall.signatures.required`. I would start by trying setting that to false. 

I'm not sure what version of Firefox you're testing with. I don't think the above pref works on Release, but does on Nightly. Give it a try and let me know how it goes.
Flags: needinfo?(bob.silverberg)
Note: We are using unsigned legacy addons and they're working fine; but for some reason we can't use our web extension unsigned. We must be missing something...
That is odd. Is there anything in the output from the console that might shed some light on what's going wrong when the extension install is attempted?
(In reply to Bob Silverberg [:bsilverberg] from comment #9)
> That is odd. Is there anything in the output from the console that might
> shed some light on what's going wrong when the extension install is
> attempted?

Good suggestion thanks!

I ran my local nightly build, manually set the xpi.install.signatures.required pref to False, then installed the extension manually via tools => add-ons => install from file. It just came up and asked was I sure I want to install the unverified add-on, I went ahead and it installed fine (nothing in console). Now on about:addons it shows up. Must be the way we are installing it programmatically...
I'm not really that familiar with the code that installs extensions. Andrew Swan on our team is probably the expert, but he's off this week. I'll bet that Rob Helmer might be able to help though. I'm going to needinfo him on the bug and hopefully he can help you figure it out.
Flags: needinfo?(rhelmer)
Thanks Bob :)
Ahhhh nvm I figured it out,

1) I had a typo in the extension file name when running locally;
2) on my try push in comment 2 I was setting the extension for tspaint to the unsigned one however I had left out the setting for tp5o; so it was still pointing to the signed-xpi which didn't exist anymore so wasn't loading the webext.

Thanks Bob anyway for your time appreciated!
Flags: needinfo?(rhelmer)
Glad to hear you figured it out!
Comment on attachment 8942291 [details]
Bug 1403514 - remove requirement to sign talos web extensions;

Attachment #8942291 - Flags: review?(jmaher) → review+
Pushed by
remove requirement to sign talos web extensions; r=jmaher
Closed: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla59
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.