436102 - Addons doesn't provide compatibility information for old extension versions

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Administration, defect)

Description

[Ben Basson]

New Tab Homepage versions:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/777

NTH 0.3 fails to install on Firefox 2.0.0.14

XPI is set as compatible with Firefox 1.0 - Firefox 1.4.1
Addons has compatibility as 1.0 - 2.0.0.*

I've had intermittent reports of this problem for the last year or so, and I just assumed that there was an obscure scenario where Firefox or Addons fails to communicate, or the wrong information is communicated. Because I couldn't ever reproduce the issue, I just lived with the occasional email and sent people installers with new compatibility info. 

I don't know if it has been affected by my release of NTH 0.4 or whether the new Addons version is doing something different, but something has now made this problem reproducible every time.

Comment 1

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

NTH 0.4 supports Fx 3.0b2 - 3.0.* and NTH 0.3 supports 1.0 - 2.0.0.* on AMO.

The update check script will only return the latest version of an add-on compatible with the client application. This check does not take into account the version of the application, which is why users installing old versions will not get any information returned when doing an updatecheck/versioncheck.

The client app version checking was purposely removed, but I don't remember exactly why.

Comment 2

[Onno Ekker [:nONoNonO UTC+1]]

Firefox 2.0.0.14 doesn't have new extension manager that will check amo on install...

Comment 3

[Ben Basson]

New Tab Homepage 0.3 has been available, unchanged, on Addons for at least two years if memory serves correctly. If what you suggest is true, then no user of 2.0.0.* would ever have been able to install it. 

Comment 4

[Onno Ekker [:nONoNonO UTC+1]]

When I install in Firefox 2.0.0.14 I get an error:
Incompatible Extension
/!\ New Tab Homepage 0.3 could not be installed because it is not compatible with Firefox 2.0.0.14
(New tab Homepage 0.3 will only work with Firefox versions from 1.0 to 1.4.1)
[ Ok ]
The only way to install to fx-2 is to unpack the xpi, edit the install.rdf, and pack it in again. I think you'll see in the statistics that you have a lot more Downloads than you have active users and you won't have that many firefox 2.0.0.* users. You have never got any complaints or did you only recently mark compatible with fx-2?

Comment 5

[Ben Basson]

I've had occasional complaints (one a month or less) and I've personally installed New Tab Homepage 0.3 to Firefox 2.0.0.* from Addons in the past. The extension has been marked as 2.0.0.* compatible since 2.0 was released. 

Comment 6

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> New Tab Homepage 0.3 has been available, unchanged, on Addons for at least two
> years if memory serves correctly. If what you suggest is true, then no user of
> 2.0.0.* would ever have been able to install it. 
> 

The new version wasn't present until May 17. Prior to that, update checks would have been returning the old compat info, so Firefox 2 users would have been able to install it.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Firefox 2.0.0.14 doesn't have new extension manager that will check amo on
> install...
> 

It does. If an extension isn't compatible, the EM has been checking the updateURL for updated compatibility since at least Firefox 1.5, maybe earlier.

Comment 7

[Ben Basson]

Ok, so basically the situation is that if I release early for 3.0 as encouraged, then 2.0 users get problems, and if I hold back, 3.0 RC (etc.) users complain instead. This doesn't bode well for my inbox.

So anyway, where does this go from here? Is there something I should be doing to resolve this problem? 

Comment 8

[Onno Ekker [:nONoNonO UTC+1]]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Firefox 2.0.0.14 doesn't have new extension manager that will check amo on
> > install...
> > 
> 
> It does. If an extension isn't compatible, the EM has been checking the
> updateURL for updated compatibility since at least Firefox 1.5, maybe earlier.
> 

Aw, sorry for the confusion. I'm new to AMO to and for my extension inline version bumping doesn't work. I found out today that that's because my extension is experimental. Documentation isn't too clear about the matter...

Comment 9

[Onno Ekker [:nONoNonO UTC+1]]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Ok, so basically the situation is that if I release early for 3.0 as
> encouraged, then 2.0 users get problems, and if I hold back, 3.0 RC (etc.)
> users complain instead. This doesn't bode well for my inbox.
> 
> So anyway, where does this go from here? Is there something I should be doing
> to resolve this problem? 
> 

You could have made version 0.4 backward compatible... Now you should maybe make a 0.3.1 for FX-2 with updated install.rdf? Or this bug should be resolved, or if it's only you, maybe someone can rerelease 0.3 for you

Comment 10

[Ben Basson]

Tweaking summary.

Mike/Justin, what's the right call here? I'm quite happy to push out a 0.3.1 as Onno suggests if it'll make this issue go away for me (it'd take a fraction of the time I spend dealing with resulting emails), but surely this is an actual bug in its own right.

I've got to this point by following the guidance of Mozilla - using server-side compatibility ranges to bump compatibility and releasing early in time for 3.0 as encouraged on several occasions. My extension surely can't be the only one affected by this.

So, will this be addressed properly, or should I simply push out a quick release? If someone can tweak the XPI server-side so I don't have to bother, that'd be even better, and unnecessary upgrades could be avoided by those that already have the extension installed.

Comment 11

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

I think the right thing to do is upload a new version.  We won't have time to resolve the larger issue (which is not bumping versions in install.rdf to match the AMO database) until a later date.

Comment 12

[Ben Basson]

Ok, great, I'll submit a new XPI in the morning.

Comment 13

[Ben Basson]

Right, so I've submitted 0.3.1 to solve this problem (install.rdf has 2.0.0.* as the maxVersion), it's showing up in the developer control panel as my latest version. I was hoping that the version number would take precedent over submission date, but I understand if you can't rely on that. Sigh.

Am I going to have to resubmit 0.4 to rectify this?

Comment 14

[Onno Ekker [:nONoNonO UTC+1]]

Is 0.3.1 already public?

Comment 15

[Onno Ekker [:nONoNonO UTC+1]]

Sorry, misunderstood your question, because on public page I still see 0.4 as your latest version. Don't know if you have to resubmit 0.4...

Comment 16

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

The 'other versions' page contains this information.