785517 - Validation Page has some old links and expired advice

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Add-on Validation, defect)

Description

[Gregg Lind (Fx Strategy and Insights - Shield - Heartbeat )]

(putting on my UX hat)

Looking at:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/addon/test-pilot/validation-result/131205

1) """Error: The validation process took too long to complete. Contact an addons.mozilla.org editor for more information."""

I have no idea of how to contact such an editor.  Maybe link somewhere better? Or just say irc.m.o #addons ?


2)  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_1_for_developers is linked but doesn't exist.  I hope we don't need to stay Fx compatiable

3)  for the 'innerHtml' warnings (`innerHTML should not be set dynamically`) , it would be nice to link to ref for what is safe and unsafe practice there.

4)  """Add-on contains JAR files, no <em:unpack>

Warning: The add-on contains JAR files and does not set <em:unpack> to 'true'. This can result in performance issues in add-ons that target Gecko 4. It is recommended that you consider no longer using JAR files to package your chrome files."""

Is this still true?  Gecko 4?  



This are all *super minor things*

Comment 1

[Matt Basta [:basta]]

I don't have access to the page that you've provided, but if you can attach the XPI or pastebin the output, I can take a closer look.

(In reply to Gregg Lind (User Research - Test Pilot) from comment #0)
> (putting on my UX hat)
>
> 1) """Error: The validation process took too long to complete. Contact an
> addons.mozilla.org editor for more information."""

This message is a problem that we're dealing with now. The error that causes it should not be happening and we're working to fix the problem. You can track it in bug 785531.

> 2)  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_1_for_developers is linked but
> doesn't exist.  I hope we don't need to stay Fx compatiable

I can't find any reference to the above URL in the validator's codebase. Is this a part of the results?

> 4)  """Add-on contains JAR files, no <em:unpack>
> 
> Warning: The add-on contains JAR files and does not set <em:unpack> to
> 'true'. This can result in performance issues in add-ons that target Gecko
> 4. It is recommended that you consider no longer using JAR files to package
> your chrome files."""

This should read "Gecko 4 and above". I'll fix this in an upcoming push.

Comment 2

[Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] (he/him)]

(In reply to Matt Basta [:basta] from comment #1)
> > 2)  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_1_for_developers is linked but
> > doesn't exist.  I hope we don't need to stay Fx compatiable
> 
> I can't find any reference to the above URL in the validator's codebase. Is
> this a part of the results?

Yes, it's part of the results page. I think it broke since the Firefox 10 bump. There must be some 1 digit version assumption somewhere.

Comment 3

[Matt Basta [:basta]]

Can you take a screenshot for me?

Comment 4

[Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] (he/him)]

Attachment: Screenshot of compat validation showing 'Firefox 1' link

Comment 5

[Gregg Lind (Fx Strategy and Insights - Shield - Heartbeat )]

https://github.com/mozilla/zamboni/pull/442

(I gave up on testing it myself after I couldn't get my.conf working, and otherwise get the settings_local.py right.  Anything to make that *even simpler* would have helped.  And yes, I realize it's already very simple!)

Comment 6

[Matt Basta [:basta]]

Merged:

https://github.com/mozilla/zamboni/commit/2b02c171a5406e7a5e1d6719d6307261ccffb441

Comment 7

[Matt Basta [:basta]]

Fixed for good:

https://github.com/mozilla/zamboni/commit/3fed25a3fd78a54e5563e54edd1cce9ab1fe3b6c