Current state of addon compatibility?

[Chris Peterson]

Who originally tested the top 100 addons for the "Electrolysis Addon
Tracking" spreadsheet [1]? Does anyone periodically retest the top 10 or
so addons?

I'm preparing to reach out to some addon developers. Of the top 10
addons, do we know which currently work, work with minor problems, or
fail completely? I'd like to contact the "work with minor problems"
developers first. <:) If we can help them port their addons, then we can
use those experiences to write some "case study" blog posts for AMO.


1. Adblock Plus
2. Video DownloadHelper
3. Firebug
4. NoScript
5. Greasemonkey
6. DownThemAll!
7. Download Statusbar
8. FlashGot Mass Downloader
9. Web of Trust - WOT
10. Tab Mix Plus


chris


[1]
https://docs.google.com/a/mozilla.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhFRRYurPzRndHQwUVNscThIbFBsYmNRaU44LVlDdlE

[Tom Schuster]

I made that list by myself a relative long time ago. I obviously didn't
test in depth.
Adblock and WOT should work. I worked on fixing those. Firebug can't work.
Greasemonkey uses patterns that are hard to support. (Scriptish a fork of
it allegedly has some support) I fixed some of the video download helper
code. I assume the of the download addons also don't work.

Tom

> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-electrolysis mailing list
> dev-tech-e...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-electrolysis
>

[Chris Peterson]

On 11/27/13, 11:01 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> Adblock and WOT should work. I worked on fixing those. Firebug can't work.
> Greasemonkey uses patterns that are hard to support. (Scriptish a fork of
> it allegedly has some support) I fixed some of the video download helper
> code. I assume the of the download addons also don't work.

Do we have a solution for content process code, like downloader addons
or page printing, that want to do file I/O? This is tricky balance
between sandbox security and addon features. :)


chris