nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io | Updating documentation on the website

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups Wiki

Date Date 1 - 9 of 9

Updating documentation on the website

Noelia Ruiz #20719 Hello: Not just the requirements file, but also the main page, needs to be updated. If someone wants to take care of this, will be great. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. addonFiles repo is still mentioned and linked on the main page. I think we have to add a link to the submitters guide of the store, which is self explanatory. Anyway we may provide two tips like the following: - Use valid NVDA API versions for minimum and last tested ones. - If you provide a URL in add-on manifest, be sure that it starts with https. Don't use None. Imo these are the most common mistakes that may cause failures when sending pull requests. Cheers.
More All Messages By This Member
Cyrille #20720 Hi Noelia I am not sure to agree that min version should be a valid API version in the manifest. Indeed it appears in the About dialog of the add-on and 0.0.0 may be with no sense for the user. To me, for add-ons supporting old versions of NVDA prior to 2019.1, e.g. 2018.3, this version should still be added as 2018.3 in the manifest. But 0.0.0 should be added in the corresponding json file when submitting the add-on. If automatic PR does not convert 2018.3.0 to 0.0.0, the PR should be done manually. Cheers, Cyrille toggle quoted message Show quoted text On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:16 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hello: Not just the requirements file, but also the main page, needs to be updated. If someone wants to take care of this, will be great. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. addonFiles repo is still mentioned and linked on the main page. I think we have to add a link to the submitters guide of the store, which is self explanatory. Anyway we may provide two tips like the following: - Use valid NVDA API versions for minimum and last tested ones. - If you provide a URL in add-on manifest, be sure that it starts with https. Don't use None. Imo these are the most common mistakes that may cause failures when sending pull requests. Cheers.
More All Messages By This Member
Noelia Ruiz #20722 Hi Cyrille, I think that your proposal is not supported for manual PRs. It's just not supported since it was decided like that. Please see the submitter guide and the json metadata link provided there. If you want, try to send a manual PR for testing, but I'm almost 100% sure that this is not supported. See also: https://github.com/nvaccess/addon-datastore-validation/pull/17 Cheers 2023-03-11 11:31 GMT+01:00, Cyrille via groups.io <cyrille.bougot2@...>: toggle quoted message Show quoted text Hi Noelia I am not sure to agree that min version should be a valid API version in the manifest. Indeed it appears in the About dialog of the add-on and 0.0.0 may be with no sense for the user. To me, for add-ons supporting old versions of NVDA prior to 2019.1, e.g. 2018.3, this version should still be added as 2018.3 in the manifest. But 0.0.0 should be added in the corresponding json file when submitting the add-on. If automatic PR does not convert 2018.3.0 to 0.0.0, the PR should be done manually. Cheers, Cyrille On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:16 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hello: Not just the requirements file, but also the main page, needs to be updated. If someone wants to take care of this, will be great. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. addonFiles repo is still mentioned and linked on the main page. I think we have to add a link to the submitters guide of the store, which is self explanatory. Anyway we may provide two tips like the following: - Use valid NVDA API versions for minimum and last tested ones. - If you provide a URL in add-on manifest, be sure that it starts with https. Don't use None. Imo these are the most common mistakes that may cause failures when sending pull requests. Cheers.
More All Messages By This Member
Cyrille #20724 Hi Noelia Actually, I have submitted Windows Magnifier as a manual PR and it has been merged yesterday; see PR #144. In this PR, I have set 0.0.0 as min NVDA version in the JSON. But the add-on that can be downloaded at the provided URL still has 2018.3 as min NVDA version in its manifest. Unless I am mistaken, there is no check that these two values are equal when submitting manual PR. And if version numbers prior to 2019.1 have no sense for the add-on store which manages add-ons by their API version number, they have sense on NVDA side in the About dialog of add-ons. Cheers, Cyrille toggle quoted message Show quoted text On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:40 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hi Cyrille, I think that your proposal is not supported for manual PRs. It's just not supported since it was decided like that. Please see the submitter guide and the json metadata link provided there. If you want, try to send a manual PR for testing, but I'm almost 100% sure that this is not supported. See also: https://github.com/nvaccess/addon-datastore-validation/pull/17 Cheers 2023-03-11 11:31 GMT+01:00, Cyrille via groups.io <cyrille.bougot2@...>: Hi Noelia I am not sure to agree that min version should be a valid API version in the manifest. Indeed it appears in the About dialog of the add-on and 0.0.0 may be with no sense for the user. To me, for add-ons supporting old versions of NVDA prior to 2019.1, e.g. 2018.3, this version should still be added as 2018.3 in the manifest. But 0.0.0 should be added in the corresponding json file when submitting the add-on. If automatic PR does not convert 2018.3.0 to 0.0.0, the PR should be done manually. Cheers, Cyrille On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:16 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hello: Not just the requirements file, but also the main page, needs to be updated. If someone wants to take care of this, will be great. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. addonFiles repo is still mentioned and linked on the main page. I think we have to add a link to the submitters guide of the store, which is self explanatory. Anyway we may provide two tips like the following: - Use valid NVDA API versions for minimum and last tested ones. - If you provide a URL in add-on manifest, be sure that it starts with https. Don't use None. Imo these are the most common mistakes that may cause failures when sending pull requests. Cheers. S
More All Messages By This Member
Rui Fontes #20725 One question: If the repository, by instance: https://github.com/ruifontes/addonshelp haves in last release, in this case, 2023.03.10 an asset named 2023.3.10.json, why the automatic process does not use it and create a new one? For me, it should only check if "sha256" is correct, and if so, use it... And yet regarding this add-on, if the legacy add-on have the "addonId": "addonsHelp", how should I publish the last release without entering in the process of fork the NVAccess repository, creating a branch and so on? And, if legacy and actual stable have different "addonId", how is the update from legacy to the actual stable? And, one more thing: On https://nvdaes.github.io/nvdastore/, legacy add-ons documentation is no longer present... Something I am not understanding... Às 14:35 de 11/03/2023, Cyrille via groups.io escreveu: toggle quoted message Show quoted text Hi Noelia Actually, I have submitted Windows Magnifier as a manual PR and it has been merged yesterday; see PR #144. In this PR, I have set 0.0.0 as min NVDA version in the JSON. But the add-on that can be downloaded at the provided URL still has 2018.3 as min NVDA version in its manifest. Unless I am mistaken, there is no check that these two values are equal when submitting manual PR. And if version numbers prior to 2019.1 have no sense for the add-on store which manages add-ons by their API version number, they have sense on NVDA side in the About dialog of add-ons. Cheers, Cyrille On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:40 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hi Cyrille, I think that your proposal is not supported for manual PRs. It's just not supported since it was decided like that. Please see the submitter guide and the json metadata link provided there. If you want, try to send a manual PR for testing, but I'm almost 100% sure that this is not supported. See also: https://github.com/nvaccess/addon-datastore-validation/pull/17 Cheers 2023-03-11 11:31 GMT+01:00, Cyrille via groups.io <cyrille.bougot2@...>: Hi Noelia I am not sure to agree that min version should be a valid API version in the manifest. Indeed it appears in the About dialog of the add-on and 0.0.0 may be with no sense for the user. To me, for add-ons supporting old versions of NVDA prior to 2019.1, e.g. 2018.3, this version should still be added as 2018.3 in the manifest. But 0.0.0 should be added in the corresponding json file when submitting the add-on. If automatic PR does not convert 2018.3.0 to 0.0.0, the PR should be done manually. Cheers, Cyrille On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:16 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hello: Not just the requirements file, but also the main page, needs to be updated. If someone wants to take care of this, will be great. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. addonFiles repo is still mentioned and linked on the main page. I think we have to add a link to the submitters guide of the store, which is self explanatory. Anyway we may provide two tips like the following: - Use valid NVDA API versions for minimum and last tested ones. - If you provide a URL in add-on manifest, be sure that it starts with https. Don't use None. Imo these are the most common mistakes that may cause failures when sending pull requests. Cheers. S
More All Messages By This Member
Noelia Ruiz #20726 I think that, if manual submissions aren"t checked in the same way than submissions from issues, this is inconsistent and should be reported as a bug. Can you validate your addon locally with runvalidate.bat? Otherwise I"ll do it before updating the documentation or we may report this to update github actions to avoid inconsistencies. Cheers. Enviado desde mi iPhone toggle quoted message Show quoted text El 11 mar 2023, a las 15:35, Cyrille via groups.io <cyrille.bougot2@...> escribió: Hi Noelia Actually, I have submitted Windows Magnifier as a manual PR and it has been merged yesterday; see PR #144. In this PR, I have set 0.0.0 as min NVDA version in the JSON. But the add-on that can be downloaded at the provided URL still has 2018.3 as min NVDA version in its manifest. Unless I am mistaken, there is no check that these two values are equal when submitting manual PR. And if version numbers prior to 2019.1 have no sense for the add-on store which manages add-ons by their API version number, they have sense on NVDA side in the About dialog of add-ons. Cheers, Cyrille On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:40 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hi Cyrille, I think that your proposal is not supported for manual PRs. It's just not supported since it was decided like that. Please see the submitter guide and the json metadata link provided there. If you want, try to send a manual PR for testing, but I'm almost 100% sure that this is not supported. See also: https://github.com/nvaccess/addon-datastore-validation/pull/17 Cheers 2023-03-11 11:31 GMT+01:00, Cyrille via groups.io <cyrille.bougot2@...>: Hi Noelia I am not sure to agree that min version should be a valid API version in the manifest. Indeed it appears in the About dialog of the add-on and 0.0.0 may be with no sense for the user. To me, for add-ons supporting old versions of NVDA prior to 2019.1, e.g. 2018.3, this version should still be added as 2018.3 in the manifest. But 0.0.0 should be added in the corresponding json file when submitting the add-on. If automatic PR does not convert 2018.3.0 to 0.0.0, the PR should be done manually. Cheers, Cyrille On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 11:16 AM, Noelia Ruiz wrote: Hello: Not just the requirements file, but also the main page, needs to be updated. If someone wants to take care of this, will be great. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. addonFiles repo is still mentioned and linked on the main page. I think we have to add a link to the submitters guide of the store, which is self explanatory. Anyway we may provide two tips like the following: - Use valid NVDA API versions for minimum and last tested ones. - If you provide a URL in add-on manifest, be sure that it starts with https. Don't use None. Imo these are the most common mistakes that may cause failures when sending pull requests. Cheers. S
More All Messages By This Member
Luke Davis #20744 Cyrille via groups.io wrote: I am not sure to agree that min version should be a valid API version in the manifest. Indeed it appears in the About dialog of the add-on and 0.0.0 may be with no sense for the user. Cyrille, you already know that I agree with you about this, from the conversation on GitHub. It occurrs to me that we may need another manifest option: one for minimum API version, and one for minimum NVDA version (the current value), that is advisory, and shown to users as the current min version is. I think that would solve our concerns about this. Luke
More All Messages By This Member
Noelia Ruiz #20765 Hello: I've updated the documentation on the website, both the main page and the requirements, without extra explanations, just linking to the store documentation. In this way, if someone needs help, this person can request for assistance on this list, for example. And issues or difficulties to understand the official documentation can be send there, so that it can be improved. Also, I've added a link to the submission guide on the messages footer. Cheers 2023-03-11 11:15 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via groups.io <nrm1977@...>: toggle quoted message Show quoted text Hello: Not just the requirements file, but also the main page, needs to be updated. If someone wants to take care of this, will be great. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. addonFiles repo is still mentioned and linked on the main page. I think we have to add a link to the submitters guide of the store, which is self explanatory. Anyway we may provide two tips like the following: - Use valid NVDA API versions for minimum and last tested ones. - If you provide a URL in add-on manifest, be sure that it starts with https. Don't use None. Imo these are the most common mistakes that may cause failures when sending pull requests. Cheers.
More All Messages By This Member
Sean Budd (NV Access) #20999 Another solution for 0.0.0 being displayed to the user is rendering that value as "2018.4 or earlier" in the UX of NVDA.
More All Messages By This Member

1 - 9 of 9

1

Previous Topic Next Topic

Home Hashtags Subgroups Wiki About Features Pricing Updates Terms Help Twitter