Hi woxxom, I don't expect that to be an issue in practice. Review times have come down significantly since earlier in the year, and even at the

example, Manifest V3 migration, API limitations, debugging, testing, Chrome Web Store publishing, or anything else)? 2. How do you currently deal with this problem? 3. If an ideal

it follows Manifest V3, requests minimal permissions, and >>>>>>> features fully optimized Chrome Web Store. >>>>>>> If the request

criteria: Manifest V3, minimal permissions, compliance with Chrome Web Store policies, and an optimized store listing. If anything is missing or blocking the review, I'd be

extension follows Manifest V3, uses minimal permissions, and has fully optimised Chrome Web Store listing assets. If the request is still under review, no problem at all. Thank you

> - Manifest V3 extension with "contextMenus" permission > > I have filed a bug report at https://issues.chromium.org/issues/514442561. > > The "

all scoped to YouTube (manifest v3). Would appreciate any update on the status and how we can get it over the line. Extension ID (jfabmmckbhkgecbigkcchmjbcmcomjnd) Thanks Faraaz

review since 8th April. It's been 16 days. Permissions are storage, tabs, and alarms all scoped to YouTube ( Manifest V3). Would appreciate any update on the status. Thanks, Faraaz

policies, manifest v3 standard, no unnecessary permissions, no malicious code, single purpose, complete privacy policy and user instructions. I have double checked all policy

compliant with Manifest V3 and have updated our privacy justifications. I have tried creating support tickets. All I am getting is are automated replies with no real discussion or

Regarding the manifest references to localhost and testapp, that was an >> oversight on my part; I was not building the manifest separately at build >> time for different

recently using Manifest V3. > > Both were built to solve personal pain points, and I'm especially > interested in > feedback around: > - MV3 best practices >

using *Manifest V3* and trying to > achieve *page-action–like behavior* (enable the extension only on > specific pages). > > I'm using chrome.declarativeContent

codebase follows Manifest V3 guidelines. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Permissions are restricted to YouTube pages, and the extension's purpose

mv3/manifest/incognito >>>> >>>> On Sunday, January 18, 2026 at 6:04:52 AM UTC+3 al wrote: >>>> >>>>> @woxxom >>

Extension (Manifest V3) that automatically triggers Picture-in-Picture (PiP) for YouTube videos when the user switches to a different tab, and exits PiP when they return. The Problem

Extension (Manifest V3) using Transformers.js v3 + ONNX > Runtime Web Running in an Offscreen Document (required for > WASM/WebGPU) 3 models total: > SmolLM2-360M (Text

extension using Manifest V3, and I would like to >> integrate the Google Picker API to allow users to choose a folder on Google >> Drive before uploading a file. >>

update the manifest from your own code? You could create a new directory with the correct files and then call launchPersistentContext afterwards. Oliver Dunk | DevRel, Chrome Extensions

entirely on Manifest V3 and declarativeNetRequest. >> >> I am currently advising several municipalities that are still relying on >> legacy extensions (like

> In Manifest V3, if I declare: >> *optional_host_permissions": [ "file://*/*" ]* >> >> is that enough to make the *“Allow access to file URLs

if the manifest does not have a update_url defined. It doesn't have to be a real location... but you need something there for it to be registered for updates. Then you can override

it to v3. Conversion was succesfull and its fully >>>>>> functional in v3. However some external customers are getting the issue of >>>>>>

Extension (Manifest V3)? >>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For implementing this kind of reactive UI, should I

TypeScript and Manifest V3 - Uses Chrome's Translator API for text translation - Uses Language Detector API for automatic language detection - Privacy-focused: processes text

in a Manifest V3 item." You cleary know where you found this in the code, why not just share this in the rejection report? For a precvious violation, I had to email support and wait

extension (Manifest V3) where I: >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Capture the current tab using chrome.pageCapture.saveAsMHTML from >>> the

a Chrome Manifest V3 extension in the Web Store that is used by K–12 school districts and force-installed via the Google Admin Console. We need to support managed configuration using

extension to Manifest v3. My team has spoken to them in the past, and they confirmed they were in process of completing this migration, so hopefully it will be live soon. On Mon, Jul 14

in a Manifest V3 item."* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This was unexpected. We haven't added any externally hosted scripts. >>