[DISCUSSION] What do you want to see in the next version of Phoebus?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Here is what I have planned so far for Phoebus 2.1 but I want everyone's input on it and other things you would like to see.

Enhance the Panel - https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team/phoebus/issues/97
Enhance phoebusCode - https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team/phoebus/issues/89
Relate Add-ons and Users outside the Panel - https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team/phoebus/issues/98

BTW do NOT suggest Telemetry/Statistics or All Extensions Page for Pale Moon!

[vannilla]

Personally I'd like to be able to find all the extensions a certain developer has published on Phoebus.
Possibly including a list with links to each application-specific site when an extension supports multiple targets.
I know it's already considered (and linked in the OP), but I just wanted to say that that is the thing I look forward the most and that I don't have any strong feelings one way or another for the other features.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I am planning developer/creator profile pages but it will be opt in. So that would be something that will happen if a developer enables their public profile page.

As for links between different target application Add-ons Sites.. I don't think that will happen because as far as each site is concerned.. The other applications don't exist else I would have to filter stuff out at the smarty level instead at the manifest level. That being said, I MIGHT be able to do it after all if I convert to using a singular bitwise field to describe which applications the add-on supports. We will see but don't get your hopes up on this.

[vannilla]

I understand.
Even if it's opt-in, it's still a feature I'm intetested in (I always check the other works of a content creator, be it extensions for a software or books or something else), so I'll look forward to it.
Thanks for your work on this.

[adesh]

Tobin,

Is it possible to provide a "Restart Required" label for add-ons, similar to AMO?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

That would be determined if the item is em:bootstrap so yeah, easily. But I am not currently tracking this info. This would be something best done once per-version is already in place.

I had planned to add metadata for what kind of extension it is.. Toolkit, Bootstrap, and Jetpack. I am hesitant to use the terms "Restart Required" and "Restartless" because it could create a situation where one is preferred over another and you know how I feel about creating bias.

[vannilla]

I had planned to add metadata for what kind of extension it is.. Toolkit, Bootstrap, and Jetpack. I am hesitant to use the terms "Restart Required" and "Restartless" because it could create a situation where one is preferred over another and you know how I feel about creating bias.

That's a good idea, but I suggest adding some tooltip or help text (e.g. a link to a page on the wiki) describing each type.
Not everyone is familiar with them, and it might cause unnecessary confusion.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I was gonna add additional info to the Releases page. Give it something more to do than a bunch of green buttons.

[rafaelgomesxyz]

Sorry if this has already been requested. Can we have a link to the add-on page in "Your Add-ons" and a link to https://addons.palemoon.org/extensions/ on the panel? Also, what about being able to delete old versions? And lastly, can the login not be a dialog?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

That won't be possible because Phoebus serves more than one specific application and site. It will not display add-ons that don't target the particular site you are on. For example, you can't view an Interlink-only add-on on Pale Moon's front end website. So, unless I generate ALL of them targeting each application the add-on targets is a no-go.

Per-version management will be available with Phoebus 2.1, that is the primary focus of development of it. You will be able to mark older versions as Deactivated or Busted. However, I will not allow someone to simply ragedelete their add-on like some people did when it was FTP. That kind of destructive behavior will not be tolerated.. What if that happened constantly as people were switching to webextensions at Mozilla. What about the fact Mozilla simply deleted everything?

Nope. I am even debating if anyone (Add-ons Team and Phoebus Administrators) should be able to delete anything. Deactivate sure.. but destroy? Not sure about that.

As for the Basic Auth used for logging in. No. It will stay Basic Auth. That way the browser handles it and it remains per-session. A 401 challenge is a great way to avoid casual hammering of scanning scripts trying to find a way in since almost no one uses Basic Auth anymore. It is the perfect for our needs.

[rafaelgomesxyz]

That won't be possible because Phoebus serves more than one specific application and site. It will not display add-ons that don't target the particular site you are on. For example, you can't view an Interlink-only add-on on Pale Moon's front end website. So, unless I generate ALL of them targeting each application the add-on targets is a no-go.

But doesn't each application has its own domain? You could just show the link corresponding to the domain that the user is on. For example, if the user is on https://addons.palemoon.org/panel/, link https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/addon-slug/; if the user is on https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/panel/, link https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/addon/addon-slug/, etc. This can even be done with a script client-side.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

That won't work because many extensions are multi-application. Which do I prefer? I don't want to have to put links for ALL of them. I already said this.

[back2themoon]

Would it be possible to display the extensions' belonging category, both in search results and the individual extension pages?

For example, if I search for "keyboard" I'll currently get 3 extensions as a result. It'd be helpful to see the category next to each extension (Appearance, Tools & Utilities etc.) in the results page, and also in the individual pages.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Why do people constantly ask if something is possible.. Of course it is.. Anything is possible. The questions are: is it reasonably feasible to do and is it a good idea and by good idea I mean is it worth bothering for.

Who would ever need the category in a search results page or on the specific add-ons page? You are searching for something, that has nothing to do with categories. What about Add-ons Sites that don't have enough extensions to warrant separate categories? Am I expected to request the fields from the database even though they have no relevance? If the answer is no then it needs special casing to not request redundant or unused data. Same goes with single add-on's page.

The categories are a navigational structure which is useless on Add-ons Sites without categories and on pages where there is no navigation to be done because you are already at the specific add-ons page or you are at a search listing taking the place of a category listing.

Can you guys not come up with anything better than this? Honestly.

[back2themoon]

You are searching for something, that has nothing to do with categories.

Wrong. You might be doing an "approximate" search and knowing the category beforehand will save some time and make the Add-ons Site friendlier . Obviously not a critical feature, but it does have its uses especially as the total extension number increases.

[vanowm]

1. Protection for developer's email: don't put it in the page source as plain text, use javascript like at AMO (even though one might argue it's useless, having my email listed for 4 years on firefox website without a single spam email, I had to change it 3 times in one month due to spam after they removed that protection and put it as plain text)
2. A link to the extension public page
3. Preview for extension description: it allows bbcode, but in order to see what one just typed dev have to submit the changes and then SEARCH the extension as a user
4. A link to the main webiste

[thosrtanner]

I'd like to see the web page actually size to fit the browser window, not assume it has the full width of an A3 page all to itself.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Yeah. I'm not going to do any of that.

In fact, if a moderator would please lock this thread.

[vanowm]

I'd like to see the web page actually size to fit the browser window, not assume it has the full width of an A3 page all to itself.

Ultra wide monitor users would hate you for that.

Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 16.25.39.png

[New Tobin Paradigm]

No. Requests are now forbidden.