[Bug]: Cinder emails relating to unlisted versions, or non-public add-ons, should reference devhub urls rather than public urls

[eviljeff]

What happened?

Cinder emails currently assume all add-ons are/were public, and all versions are/were publicly available and distributed via AMO. This isn't true - add-ons have an unlisted channel in addition to the listed channel, and those unlisted versions are not available for public download from AMO - developers have to download them from devhub and distribute the files themselves. Similarly, if an add-on only has unlisted versions it won't have a public listing page.

What did you expect to happen?

Emails about unlisted versions and non-public add-ons include links to devhub rather than the listing page. The wording should probably be tweaked too.

Note for disabling add-ons we'll have take care to differentiate non-public because all the versions were unlisted, and non-public because we just disabled it in the action.

Is there an existing issue for this?

• [x] I have searched the existing issues

┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Task

[ioanarusiczki]

Testing in progress for this one.

[ioanarusiczki]

Please take a look at the cases below. I suspect the wrong cases where I circled with red ->

Reporter's email when it is notified that content won't be taken down

Final email to the reporter when it's decided that the initial decision was correct

Email sent to the reporter about initial decision being incorrect

Reporter e-mail when content is removed

Author's email when content is rejected

Author's email when content is disabled - here I don't see versions page from dev hub

Author's email when content is disabled - not on the back of a report

Content is reinstated after a version is rejected with a new version submitted and approved

Content is reinstated with force enable

Final email sent to author when decision is to keep content disabled does not mention the name or an url for the extension

[ioanarusiczki]

There might be a problem for unlisted so I filed https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1763

later edit emails sent to the reporter should be good because they may not have access to dev hub so only author emails have some issues at disable/enable. I'll file followups.

[eviljeff]

later edit emails sent to the reporter should be good because they may not have access to dev hub so only author emails have some issues at disable/enable. I'll file followups.

Can you clarify what isn't as expected now, because it's a long comment.

One thing I noticed was the urls weren't absolute - they didn't start https:// and contain the site url so they can't be clicked on by the recipient.

[ioanarusiczki]

Please look over the first 2 images from the long comment and tell me what you think. IMO they should be fine.

Then if I remember well, the last image from there with "will not reinstate your Extension" is the same for listed versions meaning the name of the extension is not provided, I think that should be alright too.

One thing I noticed was the urls weren't absolute - they didn't start https:// and contain the site url so they can't be clicked on by the recipient.

Yeah, I've noticed that for https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/9518 too, filed https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1764

Also filed https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1765 and https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1766

*I'm still wondering about an image (the 6th actually from above) because I could not reproduce it today 🤔

[ioanarusiczki]

When an unlisted version shows up in Cinder and disabled from there the email sent won't have a dev hub url

Yet, if https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1763 is valid, then this scenario should not exist.