1954637 - Extension with empty background.scripts fails to load in Firefox 136

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(WebExtensions :: General, defect, P1)

Description

[Rob Wu [:robwu]]

bug 1930334 introduced stricter validation for background.scripts

https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/f07a6b1e84a609fbf9746f67be9edd43b3ed3362/toolkit/components/extensions/Schemas.sys.mjs#299

Now, when a manifest.json file contains "background" with an empty scripts array, it fails to load with the following error message:
background requires at least one of "scripts" or "page".

There are a few extensions in the wild that do specify an empty scripts.
Here is one user report: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1jd56z5/addon_spontaneously_saying_its_corrupt/

Since this change was not required and is breaking extensions in the wild, let's revert the change.

Comment 1

[Rob Wu [:robwu]]

I have also filed a report with the extension author at https://github.com/Namesnipes/Growth-Tracker/issues/20

When I quickly counted, I counted 87 public extensions on AMO, one of which has 32k+ users. Most have fewer than 100 users.

Comment 2

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1930334

:carlos, since you are the author of the regressor, bug 1930334, could you take a look?

For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.

Comment 3

[Carlos]

Attachment: Bug 1954637 - allow loading webExt with empty background.scripts r=robwu

Comment 4

[Carlos]

It seems a bit counter-intuitive a background without any of (background.scripts, background.page, background.service_worker) throws, while an empty background.scripts does not. Are there clear criteria for a warning vs an error specified somewhere?

In any case, https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D241970 reverses the regression and adds a warning on an empty background.scripts property. Additional test coverage has been added.

Once serviceWorkers are fully implemented/enabled, should the browser prefer background.service_worker over an empty background.scripts?

Comment 5

[Julien Wajsberg [:julienw]]

wontfix for 136 at this point, because the impact isn't clear, but please tell if you think otherwise.

Comment 6

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

The patch hasn't landed on mozilla-central and there is no uplift form, so guessing that the beta uplift request was an error.

Comment 7

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/1b6dc1d4a15a
allow loading webExt with empty background.scripts r=robwu

Comment 8

[Sandor Molnar[:smolnar]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1b6dc1d4a15a