Re: Proposal: enforce minimum and last tested NVDA version flags for add-on reviews and certification upon 2019.3 release?

Noelia Ruiz

As mentioned, in this discussion for me is clear that the webpage should talk about compatibility with NVDA 2019.3, or something like that, prioritizing the purpose of the informative webpage, which could serve to inform if a particular add-on will work as expected if users update NVDA 2019.2 to 2019.3.
Users may not know about Python versions or other changes in the api like speech refactor. This is useful for devs and reviewers, not for other users.
About planning times, imo add-ons should be updated before NVDA 2019.3 stable is released, sho users can update NVDA without issues. This is important for NVDa development and even donations to NV Access, since some people may be used to donate when stable versions are released (personally I try to do so generally).
Also, we can try to enforze or talk to authors about dates, but it's up to them to follow our recommendations. We can just admin the website.
This is my opinion.

El 27/09/2019 a las 00:53, Joseph Lee escribió:
Hi all,
Yesterday there was a discussion on NVDA add-ons list about Python 3
compatibility of add-ons and state of their manifests. While some add-ons do
declare 2019.3 as last tested version and are indeed Python 3 ready, others
such as Classic Selection is Python 3 ready from source code level but not
via the manifest. This is a point of confusion because when installing such
add-ons in NVDA 2019.3, NVDA will say the add-on in question is
Thus I would like to propose that when reviewing add-ons for inclusion in
community add-ons website, reviewers should perform manifest checks. If an
add-on does use features from a given release yet the manifest says
otherwise, authors should be notified and corrections must be made before
the add-on is included. In case of an add-on declaring last tested version
as something yet the source code says something else, it still needs to be
tested in the last tested version (and newer) specified so the source code
and the manifest is in sync. This check also helps authors realize that they
do need to update their manifests from time to time to keep up with NVDA
changes, because ideally, reviewers should not be the ones telling authors
to update their manifests unless it is necessary to do so.
As for when to enforce compatibility range check (minimum version <= current
version <= last tested version), I propose January 1, 2020 as start date.
This allows people to prepare for both NVDA 2019.3 and this check at the
same time. As for what to do with add-ons that does not include minimum and
last tested version flags in their manifests, I think a notice should be
sent to authors so they can take care of it as soon as possible, or if the
author isn't willing, NVDA community should do it (for Classic Selection, it
is Tyler Spivey who should be contacted).
If this proposal is adopted by the community, I propose sending out a notice
about it several times:
* November 1, 2019: giving authors 60 days to change their manifests
and do something about Python 3.
* One of the 2019.3 betas if NV Access agrees with this proposal.
* NVDA 2019.3 RC and stable release: to remind users about this change
if adopted.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.