I couldn't see any litmus tests for signed extensions, it's probably worthwhile having a manual test for those in addition to the automated as the UI is important and it is a case rarely hit by nightly testers.
Can you point me to some specs I can read to get familiar with it? That's not correlated to the website certificate, right?
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Signed extensions tell the user the XPI has not been tampered with since it was signed by someone they trust. Few extensions implement it, but thinkgs like Google Toolbar and I think LinkedIn show up the name of the signer during the install process. I need to provide some examples of cases where the signing is broken in some way too.
http://hg.mozilla.org/projects/addonsmgr/rev/32d8dc3a73bc adjusts the test so that it allows untrusted signers to just appear as if the XPI was unsigned, this is ok for now I think.
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
Whiteboard: [rewrite] → [rewrite][fixed-in-addonsmgr][needs-review]
Created attachment 435781 [details] [diff] [review] patch rev 1 JS code can't tell the difference between an unsigned XPI and one signed by an untrusted cert. I don't think there is much difference between the two as far as a user is concerned and dveditz agrees so this just makes the test check that the untrusted XPI appears as unsigned.
Attachment #435781 - Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla)
8 years ago
Attachment #435781 - Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla) → review+
8 years ago
Whiteboard: [rewrite][fixed-in-addonsmgr][needs-review] → [rewrite][fixed-in-addonsmgr]
Whiteboard: [rewrite][fixed-in-addonsmgr] → [rewrite][fixed-in-addonsmgr][needs-landing]
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 8 years ago
Flags: in-litmus? → in-litmus-
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [rewrite][fixed-in-addonsmgr][needs-landing] → [rewrite]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.3a5
No orangeness. Marking as verified fixed.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.