I'm trying to install a packaged application in Firefox OS simulator.
The installation succeeds only partially, since a link for the app is created, but without the proper icon. When I try to execute it, asks to download the app, which fails with a simple "download failed", and the application doesn't start.
I found the cause trigger of the failure, but I don't understand it. By mangling with the manifest I found that the problem lies in the declaration of locales in the manifest.
{
"version": "1.0",
"name": "xxx",
"description": "xxx",
"launch_path": "/app.html",
"icons": {
"16": "/icon_0016px.png",
"32": "/icon_0032px.png",
"48": "/icon_0048px.png",
"60": "/icon_0060px.png",
"64": "/icon_0064px.png",
"128": "/icon_0128px.png",
"256": "/icon_0256px.png",
"512": "/icon_0512px.png"
},
"developer": {
"name": "xxx",
"url": "http://xxx"
},
"fullscreen": "true",
"default_locale": "es",
"locales": {
"it": {
"name": "L'Open Web",
"description": "Eccitante azione di sviluppo web open!"
},
"de": {
"name": "Der Open Web",
"description": "Spannende offene Web-Entwicklung-Action!"
}
}
}
If I remove the locales block (and the preceeding comma of course), the application installs correctly, and that block is copypasted from the Mozilla example. The default_locale is not overriden either. So, I have no idea.
EDIT----------------
It works if I install it from the WebIde or the Application Manager. However, if I try a install from a webpage using navigator.mozApps.installPackage it fails.
I have tried different versions of Firefox (Firefox 30-34, Firefox OS 1.3-2.2) in different platforms (Win, Linux) and with different locales, and a Firefox OS phone (FOS 1.0), with similar results.
The manifest validator always says it's ok.
I've tried the same locales block on an app of mine, and it works. I successfully installed the app on the Firefox OS 1.1 simulator and on my phone, running Firefox OS 1.4. Maybe you are experiencing a bug in your simulator.
You can also try the app validator at https://marketplace.firefox.com/developers/validator.
Related
I am trying to publish an chrome extension with following manifest file.
Every time I publish my app it is getting rejected.
Updated
{
"manifest_version": 2,
"name": "Aiwozo",
"description": "AI Work Zone Web Automation Extension is an component developed for browser interaction to implement automation on web applications.",
"version": "1.1",
"icons": {
"16":"static/activate_icons/Aiwozo16.png",
"32":"static/activate_icons/Aiwozo32.png",
"64": "static/activate_icons/Aiwozo64.png",
"128":"static/activate_icons/Aiwozo128.png"
},
"background":{
"scripts":["background.js"]
},
"browser_action": {
"default_icon": {
"16":"static/activate_icons/Aiwozo16.png",
"32":"static/activate_icons/Aiwozo32.png",
"64": "static/activate_icons/Aiwozo64.png",
"128":"static/activate_icons/Aiwozo128.png"
},
"default_title": "Artificial Intelligence Work Zone"
},
"permissions": ["nativeMessaging", "<all_urls>"],
"web_accessible_resources": [ "css/general.css", "static/activate_icons/AIwozo16.png", "static/activate_icons/AIwozo32.png", "static/activate_icons/AIwozo64.png", "static/activate_icons/AIwozo128.png", "static/deactivate_icons/AIwozo16.png", "static/deactivate_icons/AIwozo32.png", "static/deactivate_icons/AIwozo64.png", "static/deactivate_icons/AIwozo128.png"]
}
It seems that Google now requires you, the developer, to provide an explanation of what your extension does (according to Single Purpose Policy) and an explanation of why specific permissions are needed.
This is on the Privacy tab of the "new" Developer Dashboard's listing:
Until those fields are filled out, Web Store blocks publishing of new extensions and updated versions of existing extensions.
On the plus side: it doesn't mean you have failed a review yet. So with good explanations you may be able to get this published. In your particualr case though, those are broad permissions + arbitrary code execution. It will be tough.
Try with
"version": "1.0",
Instead of
"version": "0.01",
Say I was to sign into a new user on Chrome and had extensions from a previous computer synced to my account. Where are these extensions downloaded from after I sign? I thought maybe update_url in manifest.json but I'm not sure.
Let's examine an actual sync payload through chrome://sync-internals/
"SPECIFICS": {
"encrypted": true,
"extension": {
"disable_reasons": "0",
"enabled": true,
"id": "ijglncoabcgieiokjmgdogpefdblmnle",
"incognito_enabled": false,
"installed_by_custodian": false,
"name": "Desktop Notifications for Stack Exchange",
"remote_install": false,
"update_url": "https://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx",
"version": "1.6.12"
}
},
From this, Chrome does see the update_url, which it can query for the download URL according to auto-update protocol. Note that the actual extension is not hosted at that URL, that URL merely contains instructions on where to download it from. In this instance, the download will be from the Chrome Web Store.
It will also sync disabled status across instances: a disabled extension will still be downloaded, but will be disabled immediately.
Since non-enterprise versions can't install from anywhere but CWS, and non-CWS enterprise installs take their update_urls from policies and not Sync, I think the answer to your question is almost certainly "from CWS". Can't test it though.
I have an existing chrome extension in chrome web store with a similar manifest.json given below.
{
"manifest_version": 2,
"name": "Extension Name",
"short_name": "Short Name",
"description": "Some description",
"version": "1.0.83",
"icons" : {
"16": "something.png",
"32": "something.png",
"48": "something.png",
"96": "something.png",
"128": "something.png",
"512": "something.png"
},
"permissions": [ "tabs", "https://*/*", "http://*/*", "storage", "gcm" ],
"optional_permissions": [ "notifications", "webRequest", "webRequestBlocking" ],
"page_action": {
"default_icon": "styles/images/icon.png",
"default_title": "Name",
"default_popup": "popup.html"
},
"update_url": "https://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx",
"content_security_policy": "script-src 'self' https://www.google-analytics.com https://d2xwmjc4uy2hr5.cloudfront.net; object-src 'self'",
"background": {
"scripts": ["scripts/jquery-2.1.1.min.js", "scripts/background.js"],
"persistent": true
},
"web_accessible_resources" : ["logo.png"],
"content_scripts": [
{
"js": ["scripts/jquery-2.1.1.min.js", "scripts/bigstuff.js"],
"run_at": "document_end",
"matches" : ["<all_urls>"]
}
]
}
Now I would like to customize the new tab page for the user, which requires me to modify the manifest and add the following details.
chrome_url_overrides": {
"newtab": "newtab.html"
}
Will adding this disable the extension for the existing users?
Your extension won't be disabled by Chrome (but see the end of this answer!). An updated extension is only disabled if the update introduces new permission warnings (warning: this list is incomplete).
To see what permission warnings are generated by the old and new extension, see the answer to What message is generated by the chrome “permissions” property in an extension manifest?
The following comment is an excerpt from Chromium's source code, near the logic that checks whether an extension update can be applied without user interaction:
// We keep track of all permissions the user has granted each extension.
// This allows extensions to gracefully support backwards compatibility
// by including unknown permissions in their manifests. When the user
// installs the extension, only the recognized permissions are recorded.
// When the unknown permissions become recognized (e.g., through browser
// upgrade), we can prompt the user to accept these new permissions.
// Extensions can also silently upgrade to less permissions, and then
// silently upgrade to a version that adds these permissions back.
//
// For example, pretend that Chrome 10 includes a permission "omnibox"
// for an API that adds suggestions to the omnibox. An extension can
// maintain backwards compatibility while still having "omnibox" in the
// manifest. If a user installs the extension on Chrome 9, the browser
// will record the permissions it recognized, not including "omnibox."
// When upgrading to Chrome 10, "omnibox" will be recognized and Chrome
// will disable the extension and prompt the user to approve the increase
// in privileges. The extension could then release a new version that
// removes the "omnibox" permission. When the user upgrades, Chrome will
// still remember that "omnibox" had been granted, so that if the
// extension once again includes "omnibox" in an upgrade, the extension
// can upgrade without requiring this user's approval.
The chrome_url_overrides permission.
When I follow the above steps with the following manifest.json,
{
"name": "Permission test",
"version": "1",
"manifest_version": 2,
"chrome_url_overrides": { "newtab": "manifest.json" }
}
Then I get a permission dialog without any warnings ("This extension requires no special permissions."). So Chrome (tested with 54 and earlier) will not disable your extension if you add this manifest key in an update.
That does not mean that you can now publish the extension without losing users. The New Tab page is frequently viewed by users, if you change it without their consent, then the users may remove your extension if they want to regain control over their New Tab page.
And carefully review the Single Purpose Policy of the Chrome Web Store: If you, for example, start replacing the NTP with an advert-laden page that is not related to your extension's functionality, the Chrome Web Store listing may be taken down by the store curators.
I am updating my Chrome extension's manifest version.
In my local machine, it works.
When I try to install via the test group, it shows the “Manifest file is invalid” error.
Here's my manifest:
{
"name": "MercadoLivre - Sugestões de busca",
"description" : "Busque no MercadoLivre direto da barra de endereços",
"version": "0.12",
"manifest_version": 2,
"icons": { "128": "logo.png" },
"background": {
"page": "background.html"
},
"content_security_policy": "script-src 'self' https://ssl.google-analytics.com; object-src 'self'",
"omnibox": { "keyword" : "ml" },
"permissions": [
"http://suggest.mlapps.com/jm/*"
]
}
How can I fix that?
Logging out and in worked for me.
For me, the error was a result of updating my plugin and then trying to install it immediately. When I waited a few minutes, the error no longer appeared. The Google Extension servers are probably out of sync for a few minutes during the time it takes to propagate the new update.
I had the same problem today. Restarting worked for me. I got the idea for it from a Chromium bug report. Though sometimes it is an actual packaging problem.
I got this error too , I think maybe your resources under a SkyDrive folder or some team code Management soft folder . Try to copy the resources to another path, such as desktop. package your plugin with the new path , then your may resolve it !
I'm trying to use text-to-speech in a Chrome app, but I'm getting an error when trying to load the app.
My manifest.json looks like this:
{
"name": "APPNAME",
"description": "DESCRIPTION",
"version": "3",
"app": {
"urls": ["APPURL"],
"launch": {"web_url": "APPURL"}
},
"icons": {"24": "icon24.png", "128": "icon128.png"},
"permissions": ["tts"]
}
The error I'm getting reads "Could not load extension from <PATH>. Access to permission 'tts' denied."
Removing the "app" part of the manifest seems to allow it to load without problems. That would make me think that TTS is limited to Chrome extensions, but the docs suggest otherwise. Changing the "tts" permission to the "cookies" permission results in the same error, but changing it to "clipboardRead" does not.
I'm attempting to load the app via: Tools > Extensions > Load unpacked extension, and I'm using Chrome 16 on Ubuntu 11.10.
Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
It turned out that some permissions are only available for extensions and packaged apps. I was trying to use tts with a webapp, which is unfortunately not available.
That said, the Web Speech API is now available, along with Speech Synthesis.