MozillaZine

Add-on could not be installed because corrupt

User Help for Mozilla Firefox
Benjamin Markson

User avatar
 
Posts: 332
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 3:57 am
Location: en-GB

Post Posted November 4th, 2017, 5:29 pm

So, I fancied the look of this - up and coming, no less - web extension Adblock for Youtube™ by Anonymous user f817ff

Yup, anonymous user f817ff... how very encouraging! Anyway, when I try and install it I get: This add-on could not be installed because it appears to be corrupt.

Now, I am having ever increasing problems using addons.mozilla.org as it becomes ever more over-engineered and demands ever increased privileges to function properly, so, I grab a copy of the xpi and try installing it locally... same thing. In the console I see this:
Code: Select all
addons.webextension.<unknown> WARN Loading extension 'null': Reading manifest: Error processing permissions.2: Unknown permission "unlimitedStorage"

I tamper with its manifest.json and remove the "unlimitedStorage" permission, repackage, retry... same thing. Now in the console I have:
Code: Select all
addons.webextension.<unknown> ERROR Loading extension 'null': Reading manifest: Error processing applications.gecko.id: Value must either: match the pattern /^\{[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}\}$/i, or match the pattern /^[a-z0-9-._]*@[a-z0-9-._]+$/i

So, in the manifest.json I add an applications.gecko.id:
Code: Select all
  "applications": {"gecko": {"id": "VideoAdblock@mozilla.org"}},

...repackage, try again... and this time it installs.

What kind of Brave New World is this?

So far as I can determine an add-on id is still required and, at the very least, it gets assigned by AMO during the review and signing process: Extensions and the add-on ID - see the Publishing section.

I'm confused as to what is going on. The add-on claims over 3,000 users (I probably don't count as I've in effect created my own version). How did all those people install the add-on from AMO? It claims to Work with Firefox 48.0 and later. My Firefox 52 ESR is a bit of a Frankenfox but it shouldn't be that far off.

Oh, and yes, it appears to be functioning in that YT videos still run for me. Whether it's blocking ads is harder to tell.

Ben.
XUL is dead. Long live the Google Chrome Clones.

8-bit

User avatar
 
Posts: 906
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 5:19 pm

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 12:11 am

Not quite sure what the problem is, BUT, I think having an extension just to block ads on YouTube is a bit overkill. Try Ublock Origin - absolutely the best blocker out there and works across the board. You wont regret it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... ck-origin/

Give it a try...
The desire that something be true, rather than the desire for truth itself, is why pseudoscience is pop-culture.

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 2747
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 12:18 am

not sure what you have done to mess it up. gambling with extension need some knowledge, not trialling!
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add ... xtensions/

the next major problem for you would be signing - i guess.

i also think that you did not review the code yourself. those adblock clones are limited, and in fact this one only contains one single list.
>3000 good will native thinking people.

at least i dont see a problem with this extension, its all on you.

Benjamin Markson

User avatar
 
Posts: 332
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 3:57 am
Location: en-GB

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 3:31 am

Please don't get hung up on ad-blocking - as can be seen from the browser-extension-data for this add-on it is just a HUGE list of blocking urls - but that isn't what my post was about. I can find others, this one for example: MyIPCam for IP cameras does the same thing.

It may not be obvious but I am using Firefox 52 ESR and I also, broadly, know what I'm doing. ;) A little further investigation suggests that this is a FF52 thing. These extensions install fine under FF56. I suspect we're going to need some kind of new section in this forum: Firefox 52 Survivors. Web-Extension Deniers. XUL Lives. NPAPI Forever ...suggestions on a postcard.

I'm slowly noticing more and more anomalies with FF52, like web sites that have started checking the user-agent string for Firefox > 52 or 50 something or other (it will eventually probably settle nearer > 56). And this sort of thing: Why is the mydlink portal not working with Firefox 52 - yup, tough luck if you want to use your shiny d-link network cameras. In the future, web browsers are only for social media, fake news, advertising, and shopping.

Oh, what a broken web we weave. :?

Ben.
XUL is dead. Long live the Google Chrome Clones.

morat
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 6:29 pm

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 4:33 am

Are you using the signing hack in Fx 56?

http://www.largrizzly.net/firefox.html

The signing hack causes the "appears to be corrupt" error for WebExtensions without id.

Similar thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3034819
Last edited by morat on November 5th, 2017, 4:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 2747
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 4:44 am

maybe you should rephrase your issue. i am using uBlock since ages and if web seems broken, uB can fix it ^^ (refined settings)

i dont cry rivers because of npapi. for dlink it has reason to be abandonned - crap hardware. i had two of them - the first is to old (ofc the ps-supply died, general crap from dlink) - the 2nd died internally. although i never needed a plugin to the UI.

it is not wise to refer to 3rd party issues - if such vendors dont react on upcoming changes its heir fault, not mozilla. and mozilla is the last browser programmer in this row - any chromium based browser had abandonned npapi long ago, included xp and vista.
A little further investigation suggests that this is a FF52 thing.

ofc this is true, the new webxtension api grow up with each firefox release. v48 was the beginning and v58 wont be the last. but at any time sophisticated code only run stable with firefox 57, even v56 has issues because its a legacy/we hybrid.*

* experienced with group speed dial and fvd speeddial - both are buggy in v56, but not v57.

again, rephrase your issue please. my suggestions - dont use wextensions up to v56 if not needed and if legacy is still available!

Benjamin Markson

User avatar
 
Posts: 332
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 3:57 am
Location: en-GB

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 5:01 am

morat wrote:Are you using the signing hack in Fx 56?

I am indeed, so spot on. Is there a better workaround other than hacking the manifest.json which breaks both the signing and any automatic updates to the extension? I suppose you could install using an unmodified instance of FF after which the extension would appear as normal in the profile.

Ben.
XUL is dead. Long live the Google Chrome Clones.

morat
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 6:29 pm

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 6:07 am

If you want to install a WebExtension without id in Fx 56, then temporarily disable the signing hack and install normally.

I don't know if the signing hack causes problems with automatic updates for WebExtensions without id.

P.S.

The signing hack stops working in Fx 57 because the Mozilla developers disabled eval.

Code: Select all
alert(typeof Components.utils.import("...", {}).eval); // undefined, not function

AFAIK, the only way to disable signing is to hack the omni.ja file in the Fx 57 beta or release build.

Reference
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-beta/sou ... ttings.jsm

Unfortunately, we can't override a resource file. (e.g. AddonSettings.jsm)

Chrome Registration override
http://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs ... n#override
http://mike.kaply.com/2013/05/06/dont-u ... ent-253796

Benjamin Markson

User avatar
 
Posts: 332
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 3:57 am
Location: en-GB

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 9:06 am

Hm, okay, I'm still a bit confused. As I did say earlier I'm mainly using FF52 ESR although I do have an instance of the current version of FF (specifically: 56.0.2 64 bit).

On both of them I have the hack (although I now realise that the ESR doesn't need the signing hack as ESR honours the xpinstall.signatures.required setting). However, I can install these non-id add-ons under the hacked FF56 just not under the hacked FF52.

So, all I need to do is to remove the hack on FF52 ESR as I don't need it in any case. Doh.

But my being able to install these add-ons under a hacked FF56 doesn't correspond with what others are reporting.

I am only keeping an instance of the latest version of FF to see if in, say, 6 months time it catches up enough on its web extensions capability to be worth using. I'm not going to be holding my breath. Out of the 40 active extensions I currently have installed just one of them is not marked as LEGACY. On my FF52 I even reverted that one because I don't like the WE version!

Ben.
XUL is dead. Long live the Google Chrome Clones.

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 2747
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 10:10 am

The signing hack stops working in Fx 57 because the Mozilla developers disabled eval.

ymmd - finally this BS hack died

8-bit

User avatar
 
Posts: 906
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 5:19 pm

Post Posted November 5th, 2017, 9:15 pm

Benjamin Markson wrote:Please don't get hung up on ad-blocking - as can be seen from the browser-extension-data for this add-on it is just a HUGE list of blocking urls - but that isn't what my post was about. I can find others, this one for example: MyIPCam for IP cameras does the same thing.

Hung up on ad-blocking? Here is the intent of your original post:
Benjamin Markson wrote:So, I fancied the look of this - up and coming, no less - web extension Adblock for Youtube™ by Anonymous user f817ff

You want to block ads on Youtube. What am I missing here? MYIPCam.... not even sure where you're headed with that - it has no corrreleation whatsoever to your original post/intent. Please clarify exactly it is you want. This makes things much easier.
The desire that something be true, rather than the desire for truth itself, is why pseudoscience is pop-culture.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 18016
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted November 7th, 2017, 10:24 am

(He wants to install an extension. Nothing more, nothing less. Seems simple to me.)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 2747
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted November 7th, 2017, 10:50 am

if legacy has luck, if webextension possible. he never gave teh concerning extenein a name, guessing is not nice.

sign hack is stupid - signing is sophisticated.

no name, no signing = close please, not worth any further help.

L.A.R. Grizzly

User avatar
 
Posts: 5316
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 5:32 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio, USA

Post Posted November 7th, 2017, 11:52 am

Win7 Pro SP1 64 Bit
Comodo Internet Security
Pale Moon 27.6.2, Firefox 52.5.0esr, SeaMonkey 2.48, FossaMail 38.6.0 and Thunderbird 52.5.0

Benjamin Markson

User avatar
 
Posts: 332
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 3:57 am
Location: en-GB

Post Posted November 8th, 2017, 1:52 am

L.A.R. Grizzly wrote:http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=14774300#p14774300

Heh, thanks, and this thread is referenced in that thread, so now we have an infinite loop. :)

It might be worth noting on your 'How To' page that FF 52 ESR doesn't need the hack as it honours the xpinstall.signatures.required setting.

Ben.
XUL is dead. Long live the Google Chrome Clones.

Return to Firefox Support


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], LIMPET235 and 15 guests