Unable to test Adguard becasue of the block of "Jetpack/SDK extensions"

[LimboSlam]

Hi, I know this has been discusses in this last month. But I was hoping to test Adguard with the new release because the developer has been good in supporting us, and I talked to him briefly about this upcoming issue and this is what he had to say:

AG for FF is built with Jetpack/SDK, however we use only a small part of it. Let's hope new release won't break it.

So with that being said, is there an override to temporarily allow these incompatible extensions/add-ons to be enabled during these testing stages? Firefox and other browser does something similar I believe.

[half-moon]

IIRC, moonchild has said jetpack is broken (or incompatible with the new code) and there is no way to jet Jackpack to work.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

There is no temporary fix.. The SDK doesn't exist in the browser for use. If you took out the XPInstall code that marks them incompatible and blocks installation.. They would simply sit there and do nothing because the jetpack code isn't where it expects it to be for extensions to use.

[LimboSlam]

I see.... Well this may be an issue for the time being, but it wont be a complete stopper.

So I guess I'll go ahead and relay this to the developer.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I believe I already explained this whole situation to you and everyone else at least 3 times.. the Add-ons SDK and Jetpack extensions are NOT supported in Tycho. Period. Neither are WebExtensions in case someone wondered.

Pale Moon extensions are classical mozilla-style extensions using supported and time-tested Toolkit technologies and Firefox extensions support is in limbo.

[LimboSlam]

I believe I already explained this whole situation to you and everyone else at least 3 times.. the Add-ons SDK and Jetpack extensions are NOT supported in Tycho. Period. Neither are WebExtensions in case someone wondered.

Pale Moon extensions are classical mozilla-style extensions using supported and time-tested Toolkit technologies and Firefox extensions support is in limbo.

Yes you probably have Matt A Tobin. Thanks again for your patience.

[nimanima]

And how to tell as a normal user without having studied Information technology what extension is jetpack and what not? They all end in .xpi. The IDs in the Troubleshooting Information List give only a long row of ciphers in these brackets { } or the developer's email address. Nothing about their formats.

[coffeebreak]

And how to tell as a normal user without having studied Information technology what extension is jetpack...?

Please read this: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=12503#p89424

[nimanima]

Thanks, but where do I find these information? I get only as far as the xpi installation file. Where are the unpacked files hidden after installation? I have checked the C-Program Files folder to no avail. Pale moon is in there but under browser -extension there is only one extension (which one I don't know since they don't install under their names), but I have about 15 or so. Where are the others stored?

[nimanima]

Okay, I did another maybe unorthodox thing. I ran a search through the C-section of my harddrive for "harness-options.json" and "package.json" - if I understood that post of your link correctly these are the indicators for jetpack-add-ons (never heard that before today). So the 2 only results which came up belong to the Norton FF add-on which installed itself through installing Norton, and I think I had it always deactivated also in FF. In the Pale Moon add-on list it doesn't even show up. Maybe that would be something for the developers to report to Norton, though, since it is something to do with virus protection and so should actually be compatible with all browsers. Something the Norton developers should correct.

[back2themoon]

Thanks, but where do I find these information? I get only as far as the xpi installation file. Where are the unpacked files hidden after installation?

Rename the .xpi extension to .zip and use any file compression/extraction program to extract and/or view the contents.

[coffeebreak]

under browser -extension there is only one extension (which one I don't know since they don't install under their names), but I have about 15 or so. Where are the others stored?

Wasn't sure if you'd already found this (you've gotten "as far as the xpi installation file"), but...

The .xpi files live in the 'extensions' folder in your profile:
C:\Users\{yourusername}\AppData\Roaming\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon\Profiles\********.default\extensions

Quickest way to get there is via Pale Moon's Troubleshooting page (about:support): Help -> Troubleshooting Information
Click the 'Show Folder' button to open your profile folder.

That same Troubleshooting page lists all the extensions you've installed, including IDs (which correspond to the file names in the 'extensions' folder) -- So use this list to identify the files.

(The one "extension" that you found in your PM installation directory, BTW, is actually the browser's default theme.)

[Moonchild]

FTR, I intend to create a small tool that will check your extensions that are installed and report on their compatibility.
The initial idea was to have the next point release of Pale Moon report on this, but that turned out to be more of a headache to do in the browser that it would be worth for a one-time check.

[Moonraker]

I believe I already explained this whole situation to you and everyone else at least 3 times.. the Add-ons SDK and Jetpack extensions are NOT supported in Tycho. Period. Neither are WebExtensions in case someone wondered.

Pale Moon extensions are classical mozilla-style extensions using supported and time-tested Toolkit technologies and Firefox extensions support is in limbo.

was palemoon users actually asked about this decision.?.Say a poll or something.

[half-moon]

I believe I already explained this whole situation to you and everyone else at least 3 times.. the Add-ons SDK and Jetpack extensions are NOT supported in Tycho. Period. Neither are WebExtensions in case someone wondered.

Pale Moon extensions are classical mozilla-style extensions using supported and time-tested Toolkit technologies and Firefox extensions support is in limbo.

was palemoon users actually asked about this decision.?.Say a poll or something.

Even if they wanted to continue support for Jetpack extensions, they couldn't since there was no way they could really fix it.

[Moonchild]

was palemoon users actually asked about this decision.?.Say a poll or something.

There was no point in doing this. The fact was that there was not enough community effort to overcome the issues with our current release codebase; as a result, we decided on this re-base. Inherent to this re-base on later Mozilla platform code, the SDK (the development kit itself) became incompatible. No matter what users would have to say about it, there was no way this could be "made to work". A re-base simply meant losing this compatibility due to the SDK's nature.

Lacking community effort, the only way to actually move forward (and if you look at the increasing web compatibility issues with our current release version, the current state of things definitely required to move forward) is to do what has been done in the past good handful of months. Our small team is carrying this browser forward, and some sacrifices are made as a result. If you want this to be different in the future, then get involved! Contribute what time and expertise you can (as said before just throwing money at us, although appreciated, won't magically get things done).

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Let's assume for the moment that we could accomplish the change the SDK to work with Pale Moon.. Due to its nature it would be fundamentally incompatible for extensions targeting Firefox AND extensions that targeted the older SDK.. Any way you look at it you would have broken Jetpack extensions unless they specifically targeted Pale Moon..

There isn't enough tangible gains to justify the resources to fix it as-is even if it was possible to accomplish in a timely manor.

[Aube Bleue]

Off-topic:

Due to it's nature

Tobin, with all due respect, please stop confusing it's -- and its. Sorry to bring this to your attention, but you keep repeating the same basic mistake. It hurts my (non-native) eyes!

⇒ it's != its: http://homeworktips.about.com/od/improv ... qt/its.htm

Respectfully.

P.-S. -- Rest assured, you're still awesome!

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Off-topic:
Yeah, typos suck don't they.. I used to say that it is a lifestyle choice but I do keep an eye out for it but sometimes don't catch it.

Sometimes, I think too fast and type trying to get all that is in my head before my brain moves on to something else out without properly checking.. Yeah it can be irksome but doesn't change the entirety of what I have to convey.

[dave on linux]

Writing here as this thread is the most up to date thread mentioning Jetpack.

FTR, I intend to create a small tool that will check your extensions that are installed and report on their compatibility.

Just wanted to mention your "v27 Compatibility Checking Tool" from the announcements works fine under Linux using Wine (1.9.20 in my case).

Only issue is that the directory selector doesn't allow typing the path which makes selecting hidden folders (so called dot files commonly used for setting files and dirs, like pale moon's) impossible. Work around to that is simply temporally renaming/copying the profile folder.