Raymond Hill, the author of the content blocking systems uBlock Origin and uMatrix, the inability to publish the next test release (1.22.5rc1) of the uBlock Origin ad blocker in the Chrome Web Store directory. The publication was rejected on the grounds of non-compliance with the guidelines stating that "multi-functional extensions," which include features not related to the primary declared purpose, are not allowed. According to the changes made back in 2013 of the Chrome Web Store, multi-functional extensions are not permitted and must be split into several simpler ones.
Since uBlock Origin implements only one specific functionality (ad blocking), Raymond considered this a false positive and made a second attempt to publish the update by changing the version number (1.22.5rc2), but it was unsuccessful. He also could not get a response from support regarding what additional functionality is present in uBlock Origin. Requests for clarification on the reason and attempts to convince support of the absence of a violation resulted only in links to general sections of the rules, without detailing what exactly the violation is.
In the end, Raymond , that it is pointless to try to prove the erroneous nature of the rejection of the new version via email, as responses only bring repetitive generic replies and no one attempts to grasp the essence of the problem. Raymond also the created issue report, marking it as unresolved and advised users to find another browser if they want to use uBlock Origin.
Addition 1: A few minutes ago, a new test release 1.22.5.102 (rc2) appeared in the Chrome Web Store , but there is still no confirmation of resolution of the issue and it's unclear if there will be problems when attempting to update the , the upcoming release (1.22.5) of which is identical to the latest test updates, the publication attempts of which caused problems.
Addition 2: Simeon Vincent, who is responsible for interaction with developers in the Chrome team (serves as Extensions Developer Advocate), , stated that the review team has already revisited the resolution and the build in the catalog. The rejection of the publication was recognized as an error by the automated review system. It was also stated that the responses from the support team were generated automatically and there were no people available at that time to assess the situation (the block was implemented 6 days ago).
In the comments, an important issue for the Chrome Web Store catalog was raised — uBlock Origin, a popular extension with over 10 million installations, took several days and public attention to achieve any response from Google. For less popular extensions, errors in the review system can be a death sentence, and there is no guarantee that similar blocks won't happen again for uBlock Origin. Additionally, it complicates matters that the block messages do not contain specific information about the reason, only a general mention of a rules violation in the catalog. All attempts to prove the invalidity of the block lead only to unproductive correspondence with a bot.
Simeon Vincent agreed that the organization of interaction with developers leaves much to be desired and that automated systems are not immune to false positives. Regarding the uBlock Origin block, he promised to provide a detailed report next week on which code triggered the false positive. In case of issues, he recommended contacting him personally via Twitter. In the long term, he promised to work on improving collaboration with extension developers, providing the ability to obtain more detailed information about the reasons for blocks, and simplifying the process of appealing blocks.
Source: opennet.ru
