https://addons.allizom.org/en-US/developers/addon/chipmark/validation-result/4700 won't be upgraded because it contains a .sh script. Are they really considered binary? I am concerned we'll get a lot of hits on this from people who have shell scripts to build/manage their add-ons.
They're in the 'forbidden file' category, with .class and others, but they're not binary component category that would be affected by a Firefox upgrade. We should be only looking for .dll, .dylib and .so in the components, plugins or platform directories.
Matt: maybe we should make a completely new validator test case for this instead of re-using the regular binary check and changing it from a warning to an error.
Yeah, that sounds like it will fix the other problem of the error message (bug 658040) too. Ideally it would appear in the compatibility tests section.
Matt, can you add that?
Sure thing, will get started on it ASAP.
In Zamboni as of https://github.com/jbalogh/zamboni-lib/commit/82945e1
Now that this is closed, for the sake of pedantic geekery: shell scripts can absolutely include binary data. (whether we care about that in the validator may be another story)
(In reply to comment #9) > Now that this is closed, for the sake of pedantic geekery: shell scripts > can absolutely include binary data. (whether we care about that in the > validator may be another story) Shell scripts are flagged by the validator as restricted files, so we're covered in that regard. They're not affected by the compatibility issue (outdated Gecko SDK build), so we don't need to include them in this particular check.