Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Chrome Web Store rejection for obfuscated code #84

Closed
andrewgy8 opened this issue Jun 29, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Chrome Web Store rejection for obfuscated code #84

andrewgy8 opened this issue Jun 29, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@andrewgy8
Copy link

Hey! Thanks for the sweet boilerplate! Its been working really well so far.

Just letting you know that I was rejected from CWS using this boilerplate yesterday for obfuscated code.

Hi there,

We regret to inform you that the most recent submission of your item was rejected. Please find the details below.

Item name: Snippets

Item ID: eoeooehafnjjbkbnlbgfimnjchmadbap

Violation(s):

Code Readability Requirements

Violation reference ID: Red Titanium
Violation: Having obfuscated code in the package.
Violating content:
Code snippet: options.c1ff580f.js:null:null: function $56fca9218aa06700$var$isCurrentPathname(path) {...
How to rectify: Replace the obfuscated code with human-readable code and resubmit the item.
Relevant section of the program policy:
Developers must not obfuscate code or conceal functionality of their extension. (learn more)

I had seen this issue you submitted parcel-bundler/parcel#6092

I didnt have any luck applying your suggestions. However, Im pending another review with --no-scope-hoist which seems to have removed the hexi from all the functions. Ill see if that works and report back...

Filing an issue incase others run into the same thing from CWS.

@fregante
Copy link
Owner

I think that our mangle: false setting in .terserrc is breaking the variable name shortening.

Dropping the scope hoisting probably produces more code but maybe it’s not a bad idea if it preserves the function names.

@fregante
Copy link
Owner

Does your extension work for you with that flag? It appears to break it: parcel-bundler/parcel#8071 (comment)

@andrewgy8
Copy link
Author

Does your extension work for you with that flag?

Yeah, Ive just done a test and everything is working as expected so far. Takes around 2-3 days for my extension to be approved. Ill report back the results asap.

@andrewgy8
Copy link
Author

andrewgy8 commented Jul 1, 2022

Hey there! I can confirm that my extension has been published with the above fix, and it works as expected. To be absolutely explicit, here is my build command

parcel build source/manifest.json --no-content-hash --no-source-maps --dist-dir distribution --no-scope-hoist --no-cache --detailed-report 0

@fregante fregante reopened this Jul 3, 2022
@fregante fregante closed this as completed Jul 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants