[Task]: Include Chrome browser mapping extensions in high impact consideration

[eviljeff]

Description

The add-ons returned here: https://addons.mozilla.org/api/v5/addons/browser-mappings/?browser=chrome are suggested to users who are migrating from Chrome to Firefox, so we also want to protect them from being taken down without a 2nd level of approval.

We could do this by adding them to a Promoted group, or by directly checking the model that makes up the list.

Acceptance Criteria

  ### Milestones/checkpoints
  - [ ] An add-on in https://addons.mozilla.org/api/v5/addons/browser-mappings/?browser=chrome is held for further approval if a job in Cinder is resolved with a policy that would lead to AMO_DISABLE_ADDON - i.e. it is not disabled.

Checks

• [X] If I have identified that the work is specific to a repository, I have removed "repository:addons-server" or "repository:addons-frontend"

┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Task

[diox]

Since they are already a bit special, shouldn't we make sure they are at least in Spotlight, to make sure we don't suggest add-ons that haven't been reviewed ?

[eviljeff]

Since they are already a bit special, shouldn't we make sure they are at least in Spotlight, to make sure we don't suggest add-ons that haven't been reviewed ?

There's was some discussion on Slack about existing groups (specifically Spotlight) but Andreas said there wasn't any way of knowing why an add-on was in Spotlight so was concerned an add-on in the browser mapping list might be inadvertently removed.

[wagnerand]

What is the impact of not including these? If there is low to no impact, do these still need to be included? @abyrne-moz

[mixedpuppy]

If everything is in an otherwise currently included class for hi impact, we don't need to tie this in right now. We do want to know that something is being used in-product, and perhaps that can be added when issue #14986 is addressed.