Transitioning from internal sheet script to something more polished

[Michael Kelly]

For a while now I have been using scripts in a sheet for a tournament system that generates groups/knockouts dependant on various parameters. this works nicely for allowing everyone to see results and standings as they go in and also can allow trusted people access to input results at events(Darts Events).

I have base sheet which i then make copies of for each tournament I run.

I have been thinking about trying to transition this to a more polished system making it an "addon" perhaps? so can make it easier to use and can be made available to others that want to use it and that would i suppose also have the side effect of protecting my code to some extent? also would make for a more pleasing permissions request?

I have been doing some investigating but not really sure which direction to follow at this point, wondering if anyone can point me in a direction. I am not looking to be overally babysat and i am sure there is litreture/videos on the right tool for this job but I am just looking to establish which tool is in fact the best for the job.

any suggestions on which way to go about this would be welcome

MK

[Alan Wells]

Your only real option is a Sheets "editor" add-on.

It's a lot of work to get it published.

There isn't much of any real supplemental information.

Lot's of time, what people put out for information is just a retelling of what the official docs already tell you.

Which is pathetic, and a waste of people's time to read the same information.

In order to publish an add-on, you need your own website, and it needs to be verified that you own it.

You need a Privacy Policy and a Terms of Service agreement.

If you need a domain name for your website, then you'll need to pay for a domain name.

You need a company logo.

You'd need to pay money to get a image of a logo, or design it yourself.

You need a "banner" image for your add-on.

You may need to create a YouTube video showing the authorization of the permissions.

There are free video recording apps, but they are limited in what they can do.

So, you'd need a video recording software.

There are requirements that are not documented.

All those things could take a lot of time, and cost you some money.

If you decide to publish an add-on, I'd start by reading the documentation.

[Riël Notermans]

You can publish an addon without too much hassle. Ofcourse if you publish something public then some kind of reassurance who you are is logical.

Have you thought of having a G Suite Account, where you could publish it as an addon and use that account?

Met vriendelijke groet,

Riël Notermans Technisch Directeur

040 711 41 94 ri...@zzapps.nl www.zzapps.nl

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Apps Script Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-apps-script-c...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-apps-script-community/0c4459fb-384b-476e-a42c-ff7abb6d60fbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Wells]

I recently tried publishing an unlisted add-on, which previously could be done without going through the review process.  That has changed.  I couldn't publish an unlisted add-on without going through the OAuth consent screen scopes review process.  So, the process of publishing an add-on has continuously had more restrictions placed on it.  Part of the problem, is the lack of complete documentation.  There is a lot missing.  Some add-ons may be a lot easier to get published.  It can depend on the permissions that you are asking the user to authorize.

[Michael Kelly]

Thanks for the input everyone, it seems like the general consensus is that an addon "can" do what i want for but its a pain to do it and there is little to no documentation on the process itself.

The mention of Gsuite though? i do have a gsuite account semi related but this project is a personel project and ideally want to keep it seperate. if it made things significantly easier i would not be against getting another though.

at the moment it seems that the best course of action is to not bother with this idea for now. maybe in the future when the process is easier or at least more well documented it would be time to revisit it. for now put time and effort into expandeding features and cleaning up the code.

once again, thanks for the input but looks like its going on the shelf for now

MK