Webcompat Reporter extension for Firefox is not Recommended on Mozilla addon store

[ekr]

The extension is not part of Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program even though it was written by us and is used to report issues to us.

[karlcow]

@ekr thanks for the report.
(To clarify for the drive-by readers, "us" above here is @mozilla)

Some context:

@miketaylr wrote the initial extension. @laghee and @ksy36 participated to it too.

It's supposed to be multi-browser, but I'm not sure anyone has maintained the chrome and safari versions.
As for webcompat.com, while the majority of reported issues are for Firefox (Mozilla), there are reports for other browsers too as it has been designed to be an agnostic multi-vendors place.

Addon store recommendation

So now I wonder what is the process to get an extension recommended on the addon store.
Looking for information
https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/recommended-extensions/

Ah the process is

If you’d like to nominate an extension you feel deserves consideration for the Recommended program—even if it’s one of your own—please email us a link to its AMO listing page at amo-featured [at] mozilla [dot] org and briefly explain why you think your extension should be considered for the Recommended list.

OK. Let's do this, and we can see if there are things to fix to get recommended by Mozilla Addon store.
@tublitzed I'll do that this week.

[karlcow]

Email sent.

Hi,

We have an open issue [1] about the Webcompat.com Report Addon [2]. 
It is currently not recommended by Mozilla. Probably the request has 
never been made. 

I have read that Recommended Extensions Program [3] requires a 
certain number of criteria for being recommended. 

Please let us know of all the things which are not up to the level of 
quality you would need to be recommended.


Thanks.


[1]: https://github.com/webcompat/webcompat-reporter-extensions/issues/152
[2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/webcompatcom-reporter/
[3]: https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/recommended-extensions/

[miketaylr]

It's supposed to be multi-browser, but I'm not sure anyone has maintained the chrome and safari versions.

The Chrome and Opera ports share a common core with the Firefox stuff, and then Webpack spits out different versions )(so in theory it should work the same). We removed support for Safari when they required a paid developer account ($99 USD annually).

We might need to transfer ownership of the addon from me to someone else, I guess we forgot to take care of this when I left:

Just let me know who.

[karlcow]

@wisniewskit will take over @miketaylr for the extension.

[wisniewskit]

I've taken over ownership of the addon now with my mozilla.com email address.

[wisniewskit]

After having a discussion with @wagnerand and checking with the rest of our team, it seems that our best bang-for-the-buck here will be to add a first-run/splash page to the addon, shown when the user first installs it using the usual mechanism for doing so. That page will summarize the risks of PII being sent to our site when using the addon, and should suffice to get us on the recommendation track.

We've also decided to try to modify the Firefox version of this addon to simply flip our pref for the built-in addon, though that's a separate concern (tracked in #154).

[miketaylr]

I've taken over ownership of the addon now with my mozilla.com email address.

(and have removed me, thanks tom!)