Install add-on results in incorrect "This add-on could not be installed because it appears to be corrupt"

RESOLVED FIXED in Thunderbird 64.0

Status

enhancement
RESOLVED FIXED
9 months ago
13 days ago

People

(Reporter: wsmwk, Assigned: darktrojan)

Tracking

Thunderbird 64.0
Dependency tree / graph

Thunderbird Tracking Flags

(thunderbird64 fixed)

Details

Attachments

(3 attachments)

Walt discovered this through testing 63 beta, as did some other testers.  After we released 63.0b1 other users reported some issues - this is one of the issues.

This happens for Thunderbird add-ons that are not compatible, not just add-ons that are corrupt. We should report something other than corrupt so that user has accurate information. We perhaps should include an external link to a KB with more detail about the state of addons, and advice about what a user can do - for example run a different channel of Thunderbird.
We need this especially for beta ASAP.

Geoff said he'd take a look.
Flags: needinfo?(geoff)
My tests were done using install addon from file, with gdata provider 4.4.2 https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/provider-for-google-calendar/
This happens when there is no manifest.json in the extension.
Specifically, this message comes from here: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/file/tip/toolkit/mozapps/extensions/internal/XPIInstall.jsm#l645

The error message is printed to the console, so that's better than nothing.
Still needs a URL to point to, but otherwise I think this is good to go.
Flags: needinfo?(geoff)
Attachment #9017348 - Flags: review?(jorgk)
Attachment #9017348 - Flags: feedback?(vseerror)
Comment on attachment 9017348 [details] [diff] [review]
1499203-legacy-warning-1.diff

Review of attachment 9017348 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: mail/base/content/aboutAddonsExtra.js
@@ +63,5 @@
> +  description.textContent = messageString;
> +
> +  let label = document.createElement("label");
> +  label.className = "text-link plain";
> +  label.href = "https://www.example.com/";

Well, can we organise a link to point to?
Flags: needinfo?(sancus)
This should be an article on support.mozilla.org, and it seems like Wayne knows more or less what he wants it to say, so he could just write it there? I can write it if you want, I guess, but I'm not exactly sure what we want it to say.
Flags: needinfo?(sancus)
Assignee: nobody → geoff
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
We can take this now, but we need to fill in the URL.
Keywords: leave-open
Comment on attachment 9017348 [details] [diff] [review]
1499203-legacy-warning-1.diff

Works like a charm. We should fill in the "Learn more" URL one day.

Wayne can't give you feedback, but he can work something out re. the URL. I'll attach a screenshot.
Attachment #9017348 - Flags: review?(jorgk)
Attachment #9017348 - Flags: review+
Attachment #9017348 - Flags: feedback?(vseerror)
Wayne, where could we send the "Learn more" link?
Flags: needinfo?(vseerror)
Very timely. I've just been digging into this. AFAICT we have 2 KB articles
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/installing-addon-thunderbird
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/thunderbird-add-ons-frequently-asked-questions  
(Both of these very much need an update, but that's another topic.)

Neither of these deals with any error situations - except "What if my add-on is broken?", which is not the situation here.

So think immediate question is do we add info to an existing KB article, or create a new KB article to deal with add-on problems,  errors, and edge cases (like the current general mess for beta users)

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/thunderbird-add-ons-frequently-asked-questions is already very long. installing-addon-thunderbird is short. But I'm inclined, and I think cilias and others would  recommend creating an article that simply deals with exceptions.
Flags: needinfo?(vseerror)
Flags: needinfo?(unicorn.consulting)
Flags: needinfo?(bmo2018)
Hey Wayne, what do you imagine for what else would be covered in an exceptions kb article?

This would be aimed at the user, giving them more information on why their add-on isn't working, right? So it doesn't need to be all that complicated. What do we want them to do? Probably contact the add-on author.

Just trying to get an idea of what should be in said article.
Flags: needinfo?(vseerror)
Generally speaking not complicated. But it does need details. And it needs to include example errors and keywords that make it findable for users searching google and KB for specific errors.

Matt and Chris and others more active in the support community may have suggestions.  But for starters
- how to find and contact author
- "Legacy extensions must be updated to be compatible with" - what does it mean and what action to take
- etc.

Should it include "how to survive in beta and nightly land" while using add-ons?  Perhaps should be separate article. 

I also snooped around and found firefox articles
- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/unable-install-add-ons-extensions-or-themes
- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1171829
- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/frequently-asked-questions-firefox-addon
- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-add-technology-modernizing
- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-update-add-ons
- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/find-and-install-add-ons-add-features-to-firefox
Flags: needinfo?(vseerror)
As this is to be linked "in product", I think a specific article is the appropriate way to go.  That way it can be maintained with that information in mind and can be kept to the point.  Given the process of "simplification" that is going on, I would hate to see a technical article dumbed down to the point of uselessness.
Flags: needinfo?(unicorn.consulting)
Pushed by mozilla@jorgk.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/2be6397d3b05
Warn the user about legacy extension incompatibility. r=jorgk
Actually, I added a full stop here:
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/2be6397d3b05#l3.14

That's because the "Choose from thousands of themes." had one, too.
Attachment #9017348 - Flags: approval-comm-beta+
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 64.0
(In reply to Jorg K (GMT+2) from comment #16)
> Actually, I added a full stop here:
> https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/2be6397d3b05#l3.14
> 
> That's because the "Choose from thousands of themes." had one, too.

Which was removed in bug 1495708.
Never mind. The full stop was needed.
It should be an ellipsis, if anything, in my opinion…
Pushed by mozilla@jorgk.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/8b1c8d483a62
Follow-up: Change 'Learn More.' to 'Learn More...'. r=me DONTBUILD
Comment on attachment 9017348 [details] [diff] [review]
1499203-legacy-warning-1.diff

Too over-zealous here. Can't uplift due to string changes.
Attachment #9017348 - Flags: approval-comm-beta+
(In reply to Jorg K (GMT+2) from comment #21)
> Comment on attachment 9017348 [details] [diff] [review]
> 1499203-legacy-warning-1.diff
> 
> Too over-zealous here. Can't uplift due to string changes.

This being beta that is not destined for ESR, why can't we uplift - will it break the build, or will it just make that string not localizable?

If the later, could we not just take it because the current string isn't helpful anyway.  If the former, is there a simple/reasonable variation without string changes that we can do for this beta ?
Flags: needinfo?(jorgk)
Flags: needinfo?(geoff)
The string will come out in English and the l10n people will hate us. Better to ship it in 64 beta a week later. But if you insist, I'll take it.
Flags: needinfo?(jorgk)
I need some help understanding the use-case for the article.
If I understand correctly, the error "This add-on could not be installed because it appears to be corrupt" is being replaced by "Legacy extensions must be updated to be compatible with Mozilla Thunderbird 68", and a learn more link that would point to a support document.

There's mention of add-ons with no manifest.json. Is that a separate error that appears when trying to install an add-on? Will it point to the same support document?

Are Thunderbird 60 users seeing the "appears to be corrupt" message for 52.9.1 add-ons that are not compatible with Thunderbird 60+?

I also see that the app.support.baseURL pref is set to https://support.thunderbird.net/%LOCALE%/%APP%/%APPBUILDID%/, which is different from Firefox, and the comm-central code includes a couple of hard-coded links as well as help-topic links, so I'll need to chat with sancus to learn how in-product links work in Thunderbird.
(In reply to Chris Ilias [:cilias] from comment #24)
> There's mention of add-ons with no manifest.json. Is that a separate error
> that appears when trying to install an add-on? Will it point to the same
> support document?

Having no manifest.json is what causes the "corrupt" message.

> Are Thunderbird 60 users seeing the "appears to be corrupt" message for
> 52.9.1 add-ons that are not compatible with Thunderbird 60+?

No, they would see "[...] could not be installed because it is not compatible with Thunderbird 60.whatever.". Actually, in this bug we've changed the "corrupt" message to the "not compatible" message, because that's far more likely to be accurate.
(In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk) from comment #22)
> This being beta that is not destined for ESR, why can't we uplift - will it
> break the build, or will it just make that string not localizable?
> 
> If the later, could we not just take it because the current string isn't
> helpful anyway.  If the former, is there a simple/reasonable variation
> without string changes that we can do for this beta ?

Not my call.
Flags: needinfo?(geoff)
(In reply to Geoff Lankow (:darktrojan) from comment #25)
> (In reply to Chris Ilias [:cilias] from comment #24)
> > There's mention of add-ons with no manifest.json. Is that a separate error
> > that appears when trying to install an add-on? Will it point to the same
> > support document?
> 
> Having no manifest.json is what causes the "corrupt" message.

OK, so users trying to install an add-on with no manifest.json will still receive the "corrupt" message, and will still not be pointed to a support document. Correct?

> > Are Thunderbird 60 users seeing the "appears to be corrupt" message for
> > 52.9.1 add-ons that are not compatible with Thunderbird 60+?
> 
> No, they would see "[...] could not be installed because it is not
> compatible with Thunderbird 60.whatever.". Actually, in this bug we've
> changed the "corrupt" message to the "not compatible" message, because
> that's far more likely to be accurate.

Sorry, I was referring to already installed add-ons. This bug was filed for 63 beta, and I'm wondering if the issue is also in Thunderbird 60.
(In reply to Chris Ilias [:cilias] from comment #27)
> OK, so users trying to install an add-on with no manifest.json will still
> receive the "corrupt" message, and will still not be pointed to a support
> document. Correct?

No. Users who do that will see "this add-on is incompatible". Also there's an unmissable message in the Add-Ons Manager that says "Legacy extensions must be updated to be compatible with Daily 64.0a1." with a link to a support document.

> Sorry, I was referring to already installed add-ons. This bug was filed for
> 63 beta, and I'm wondering if the issue is also in Thunderbird 60.

It is not.
I'm removing the needsinfo flag. I don't think I'm qualified to provide the info you need, because I obviously don't understand the use-case for this bug.
Flags: needinfo?(bmo2018)
Is there any progress on a page to link to?
Flags: needinfo?(vseerror)
Please use https://support.mozilla.org/kb/unable-install-add-on-extension-theme-thunderbird
Flags: needinfo?(vseerror) → needinfo?(jorgk)
Consider it done.
Flags: needinfo?(jorgk)
Pushed by mozilla@jorgk.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/80500cc1cdfb
Follow-up: Point 'Learn More' link to SUMO article. r=me
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 months ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
The URL was changed yesterday to https://support.mozilla.org/kb/unable-install-add-ons-extensions-or-themes-tb

Thunderbird should look into using help-topics, as per https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/a-guide-to-linking-to-support-articles
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
That ship, 64.0, has sailed. So we should either permanently change the link back to it's original name or provide a temporary KB page that redirects a user to to the renamed KB (until 64.0 is EOL)
(In reply to Chris Ilias [:cilias] from comment #35)
> The URL was changed yesterday to
> https://support.mozilla.org/kb/unable-install-add-ons-extensions-or-themes-tb
Change it back. The URL is hard-coded and it's quite counter-productive to change it after shipping the software.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 months ago9 months ago
Flags: needinfo?(bmo2018)
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Wasn't me. LOL

From #tb-support-crew
2:21 PM <&Tonnes> I'd use unable-install-add-ons-extensions-or-themes-tb for the slug
2:21 PM <&Tonnes> 49 chars
2:22 PM <&Tonnes> and almost dientical to ff
2:22 PM <&Tonnes> identical
2:31 PM <ryanleesipes> Changed the slug
3:08 PM <&Tonnes> thanks
Flags: needinfo?(bmo2018)
The name has been changed back to: https://support.mozilla.org/kb/unable-install-add-on-extension-theme-thunderbird - so the link should be working now again.

As far as maintaining the naming standard. Please advise as to whether a redirect is possible.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Marking FIXED.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 months ago9 months ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Blocks: 1563154
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.