-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 325
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Permanent in-depth review on Chrome Web Store #808
Comments
Published v2.9.0 (Stable) today to Chrome Web Store, let's see how long it takes Google to review it. (v2.8.6.855 (Beta) is pending since yesterday) |
First data point: v2.9.0 got reviewed and published sometime today. It took 3 days. |
Submitted v2.9.0.860 (Beta), same warning, pending review 😬 |
Tried to submit v2.9.0.862 (Beta) but failed: I am also unable to cancel review of old version nor bump/replace it with new one. |
Submitted v2.9.0.881, starting the clock again. |
Submitted v2.10.0, v2.9.0.881 still pending review. |
On the bright side, this is a generic problem, not specific to IPFS Companion. |
Submitted a new beta (v2.10.0.887) to Chrome Web Store. This time, submission process forced us to fill rationale for permissions requested by our extension. Fingers crossed. |
Aaaand we got rejected: I asked for clarifications on how can we comply. cc @autonome for visibility |
Re-submitted with updated, more detailed list: Full text below:
|
Got a generic reply without any specifics:
Constructive advice would be very useful here, but Google do not seem to care about extension developers :-C We can rewrite rationale for each permission and submit again, but it starts to feel like a futile task without knowing what exactly is "future proofed too much" or which permissions are "redundant" in their opinion. Update: reached out to @dotproto for help 🤞 |
Addressing review: #808 (comment) (We no longer use alarms API and activeTab is superseded by <all_urls>)
Addressing review: #808 (comment) (We no longer use alarms API and activeTab is superseded by <all_urls>)
Submitted a new version (v2.10.0.889) which no loger requests |
Based on latest stats:
it is safe to say Chrome Web Store updated their logic and some "trusted" / "previously vetted" extensions are now approved MUCH faster. I'll keep this issue open for another release cycle tho, just to be sure the problem is gone (1-2 days is pretty acceptable, but still slow for releases with a security fix) |
Google now wants explanations for more permissions and apis 😶 Wrote explainers that will be submitted with next release:
|
Lo-fi day today, so I submitted v2.11.0.918 to the beta channel. Interesting fact: even if we unpublish/cancel/abort published version, it is still blocked until the review happens: This is important caveat to understand: means if we publish a buggy version and unpublish by mistake or in a hurry, it's not easy to restore if in "pending review" state. |
Cancelled and resubmitted 2.11.0.923 |
Submitted v2.12.0 as well. Stable channel has >30k users now: |
the prophecy is true: we are unable to ship a bugfix release v2.12.1.926 until the previously submitted one is approved: I really like the amount of whitespace before the OK button. |
It gets better: update to the Stable channel got rejected "because of reasons" (something related to privacy policy, but generic text does not help much): Note that our privacy policy did not change. Unsure if it is because we've moved location to https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-companion/blob/master/PRIVACY-POLICY.md recently, or maybe they changed the rules since they've read our privacy policy the last time in February (#808 (comment)). I've reached out to @dotproto asking for more details. |
2.12.1.926 got approved, so I assume privacy policy is ok – re-submitted v2.12.1 with the same policy/links |
2.12.1 got accepted (under 2 days, good sign) |
We might get hit in a crossfire in August, Google plans to double down on "spam extensions": |
Submitted 2.13.0 to stable channel |
v2.13.0 got approved ~3 hours ago (this time it took ~10h, interesting!) |
Submitted v2.13.0.939 to Beta channel ... and approved within 1 day. |
Submitted v2.13.1 to Stable channel... approved within 12h(!) |
Submitted v2.13.1.950 approved <2days |
Submitted v2.14.0 approved in 1 day |
Submitted v2.14.0.959 |
v2.14.0.959 got rejected because of invalid privacy policy link: I checked and for some reason the privacy policy had space in front of the URL: Note that (afaik) we did not change it recently, and both Beta and Stable got previously approved with the same value. This is yet another example of Chrome Web Store review process being severely flawed and brittle. I've removed the space from URL and resubmitted, but we may get rejected again due to newly added(?) rules: Right now privacy policy is in both description and the dedicated field (pictured above). The URL at https://ipfs.io/companion-privacy is a redirect to https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-companion/blob/master/PRIVACY-POLICY.md Just to be very clear: none of this was a problem the last time we published with the same privacy policy URL (both Stable and Beta ❗) 😑 Provided the above feedback to Google. |
v2.14.0.959 got approved after 2 days without any explanation why it was rejected in the first place 😑 Assuming it was that whitespace character + some new validation rules Google added since our last release. |
Submitted v2.14.0.966 (Beta) – approved within 1 day 🥳 |
Submitted v2.15.0 – approved the same day 🤯 ❤️ |
Submitted v2.15.0.972 (Beta) – updated November 2, 2020 |
Ok, last test cycle, if the next stable version gets approved within 1-2 days I'll close this issue 🤞 Submitted v2.15.0.977 (Beta) |
Review time has been within 1-2 days, and recently under 1 day (8h) so I'm closing this as we no longer seem to be impacted 👍 (Will reopen if review time becomes a problem again) |
What happened?
Google makes it more and more difficult to publish powerful extensions such as IPFS Companion.
In preparation for Manifest v3 (#666) Chrome Web Store artificially slows down publishing of extensions that request access to certain APIs.
Why we need those APIs?
IPFS Companion uses
webRequest
APIs to redirect requests for IPFS resources to local gateway and to display menu items for things like copying CIDs/URL or pinning.We are unable to switch to Manifest v3 (#666) because it was not released yet.
What does this mean for IPFS Companion?
Due to this change, both Beta and Stable releases may land days or weeks after official release. Google is slowing down publishing cycle of extensions like ours without providing alternative APIs.
I will look into ways we could mitigate this and post updates in this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: