If code "isn't human-readable", please tell us which file you're talking about

So we submitted a new version of our extension, but the only thing we changed was the URL allowlists in the dashboard (to deal with CSP changes). The uploaded ZIP file is from exactly the same commit that we submitted the last time we updated the extension (2021 May). Not a byte of it changed.

Then we received an email today saying that our code “isn’t human-readable.” So it was human-readable in May, but isn’t now? ಠ_ಠ

Naturally, the email does not give even a single example of what file(s) they think aren’t human-readable. What are we supposed to do? Guess?

1 Like

Unfortunately the review team are unlikely to see this post.

So your best bet is to reply to the email you have recieved.

It’s not uncommon for the review team to not ask for human readable in one release then ask for your code in a follow up release.

As review policies and proceedures update and change periodically.

Yeah, we are, I’m just not the person who actually gets the email. So I’m hoping to shame Twitch into improving their extension review process. :wink: I can understand if two different people might have different standards as to what constitutes “human-readable,” or even if policies change, but c’mon. Give us the info we need, don’t make us guess blindly in the dark!

So, an update: upon replying to their email, they responded (the next day) to tell us that they were concerned about the jQuery library we included in our package.

The unminified, unobfuscated jQuery library. The entirely human-readable jQuery library. The same jQuery library, I’ll note, that they approved last time (and on several versions before that) without any concerns.

You’d think they’d host versions of jQuery and other popular JS libraries themselves so that developers could just reference those, rather than having to deal with this rigamarole, but shrug

I can confirm that review process got much worse from the developer perspective.
Same situation as above: due to new CSP regulations we must have re-uploaded couple of extensions with modified configuration. The codebase hasn’t change a bit. Uploaded code was not minified in any way, it was only bundled my webpack (which used to be totaly allowed) but alongside bundled files we always attach map files to make review easier.
And in both cases we were asked to provide source code of the extension, even though the code hasn’t changed a bit, and was successfuly reviewed in January.

Another update: After TWO WEEKS Twitch finally replied to our email (the one where we said “Our code isn’t obfuscated, what are you talking about???”) with this gem of nonsense:

“According to our system the Extension was pulled from review from the developer side. If you would like us to take another look, please resubmit the Extension and we’ll get to it as soon as we can!”

So, you can only answer a question about a previous denial if the extension is actually in review and being streamed?! We’re supposed to keep streaming (wasting our bandwidth) for literally weeks on end in the hopes that at some point someone might actually care enough to answer our questions?? Good grief, Twitch. This whole process is just as baffling and blinkered as it was three years ago when I came down to the Twitch office in Irvine for a developer event and asked the devs why the approval process was so hostile and convoluted!