Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Add-ons/Reviewers/Guide/Reviewing

115 bytes added, 16:36, 6 January 2016
Library policy update
== Libraries, frameworks and other unreadable code ==
It's very common for add-ons to use libraries or frameworks such as jQuery or Bootstrap. Some add-ons use complex frameworks like Kango, usually to achieve cross-browser compatibility. Finally, the Add-ons SDK generates various files around the actual add-on code. Our code validator will try to detect them, but it isn't very reliable currently. If detected, this the library code won't generate validator warnings and it will be greyed out in the code viewer.
If a library or framework isnAll libraries on [https://github.com/mozilla/amo-validator/blob/master/validator/testcases/hashes.txt this list] should be ignored, even if the validator doesn't detected, detect them correctly. All other libraries should be handled carefully. The reviewer should find the original library file and diff it can mean that it was either modified by against the developer (and one included in the add-on should be rejected), or there's a problem in our detection code, in which case it should be brought up on and also ensure the mailing list. Library or framework code that has been detected as valid library doesn't need to be revieweddo anything dangerous.
Aside from libraries, many add-ons can include minified, obfuscated or compiled code. Since this code can't be easily reviewed without the original sources, only admin reviewers can review them. The Add-on History entry should indicate if the source code has been provided by the developer. If that's not the case, you can use the canned info request.
Canmove, confirm
1,448
edits

Navigation menu