1

My Firefox extension is not hosted on the official extension site. It is hosted on a secure (https) server. From what I have read, I do not need to sign my add-on, right?

The problem is that it is not working. I install my plugin, and click on 'Check for updates', but it says no updates have been found. I have set the version in the update manifest and in the install manifest from initial.rev332 to initial.rev333.

Could someone shed some light on my situation? Thanks very much :)

My install manifest...

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:em="http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#">

<Description about="urn:mozilla:install-manifest">
<em:id>jid0-BsYlcooDmgR331LCKZwABfD4yQk@jetpack</em:id>
<em:version>initial.rev333</em:version>
<em:type>2</em:type>
<em:bootstrap>true</em:bootstrap>
<em:unpack>false</em:unpack>

<!-- Firefox -->
<em:targetApplication>
  <Description>
    <em:id>{jid0-BsYlcooDmgR331LCKZwABfD4yQk@jetpack}</em:id>
    <em:minVersion>3.4</em:minVersion>
    <em:maxVersion>30.*</em:maxVersion>
  </Description>
</em:targetApplication>

<!-- Front End MetaData -->
<em:name>iStyla</em:name>
<em:description>iStyla is a marketplace for themes for Facebook, Twitter and Google+     </em:description>
<em:creator>iStyla</em:creator>
<em:homepageURL>https://www.istyla.com/</em:homepageURL>

<em:updateURL>https://www.istyla.com/Updates/firefox.rdf</em:updateURL>


</Description>
</RDF>

My Update Manifest

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<r:RDF xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#">

<r:Description about="urn:mozilla:extension:jid0-BsYlcooDmgR331LCKZwABfD4yQk@jetpack">
<updates>
<r:Seq>
<r:li>
<r:Description>
    <version>initial.rev333</version>
    <targetApplication>
        <r:Description>
        <id>{jid0-BsYlcooDmgR331LCKZwABfD4yQk@jetpack}</id>
        <minVersion>3.0</minVersion>
        <maxVersion>30.*</maxVersion>
        <updateLink>https://www.istyla.com/Updates/Firefox.xpi</updateLink>
        <updateHash>
        sha256:af031d8bb9303a42ab1f270845e9c692d65cd4fc
        </updateHash>
        </r:Description>
    </targetApplication>
</r:Description>
</r:li>
</r:Seq>
</updates>
</r:Description>

</r:RDF>
Jacques Blom
  • 1,794
  • 5
  • 24
  • 42
  • `https://www.istyla.com/Updates/firefox.rdf` returns a 404 error - is that correct? Are you testing with a different update URL? – Wladimir Palant Jul 12 '12 at 06:35
  • Oh, yes, I have temporarily renamed it to .txt for editing on the server. – Jacques Blom Jul 12 '12 at 11:00
  • Hello all, I have gotten Firefox to recognise the update, but it says 'There was an error updating iStyla' – Jacques Blom Jul 12 '12 at 11:38
  • 1
    Go to `about:config` and change `extensions.logging.enabled` preference to `true`. Then try to update again and look at the Error Console (Ctrl-Shift-J). You should see more info on why the update failed. – Wladimir Palant Jul 12 '12 at 12:24
  • Seems like my two hashes are not matching... How do I create a proper SHA-1 hash on OSX Mountain Lion. Could I do it using the terminal? I have tried using a website to do it... but looks like it doesn't work. Thanks! – Jacques Blom Jul 12 '12 at 12:50
  • MY UPDATE WORKED!!! Thanks so much. I just copied the hash from the error console and put it in my update manifest. Good enough for now, but I would appreciate if anyone could tell me how to properly create a hash of the xpi. – Jacques Blom Jul 12 '12 at 12:55
  • If you use HTTPS then you don't really need a hash - the protocol will already make sure that the download isn't manipulated. Btw, please remove your second question before somebody spends time answering it. – Wladimir Palant Jul 12 '12 at 12:59

1 Answers1

0

I think your addon version number needs to be in a different format: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Install_Manifests#version

Try the versioning format listed here to differentiate versions: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Toolkit_version_format

Maybe try <em:version>0.0.333</em:version>

Also, I don't think <em:maxVersion>30.*</em:maxVersion> is valid (I could be wrong though. If you're not hosting it on AMO it might work alright). Here is the list of valid Firefox version numbers available FWIW: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/appversions/

JJ_
  • 174
  • 1
  • 4
  • Versions like `initial.rev123` are auto-generated by the Add-on Builder. They aren't optimal but still valid (actually, any string will work as a version number given the version format). Also, using `30.*` as `maxVersion` is suboptimal if you discover compatibility issues later (which is why AMO disallows is) - but Firefox won't stop you from using that. – Wladimir Palant Jul 12 '12 at 06:33