extensions/common/api/_behavior_features.json - Issue 2159103006: Add policy provider that would filter extensions/apps allowed on the

Side by Side Diff: extensions/common/api/_behavior_features.json

Issue 2159103006: Add policy provider that would filter extensions/apps allowed on the (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master

Patch Set: Addressed comments Created 4 years, 1 month ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch

« chrome/browser/chromeos/extensions/signin_screen_policy_provider.cc ('K') | « chrome/browser/extensions/extension_system_impl.cc ('k') | extensions/common/features/behavior_feature.h » ('j') | no next file with comments »
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')

OLD	NEW
1 // Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.	1 // Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.

2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be	2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be

3 // found in the LICENSE file.	3 // found in the LICENSE file.

4	4

5 // This features file defines switches used to control Extension behaviour,	5 // This features file defines switches used to control Extension behaviour,

6 // typically whitelist configuration.	6 // typically whitelist configuration.

7 // See chrome/common/extensions/api/_features.md to understand this file, as	7 // See chrome/common/extensions/api/_features.md to understand this file, as

8 // well as feature.h, simple_feature.h, and base_feature_provider.h.	8 // well as feature.h, simple_feature.h, and base_feature_provider.h.

9	9

10 {	10 {

(...skipping 28 matching lines...) Expand all Loading...
39 "channel": "stable",	39 "channel": "stable",

40 "extension_types": "all",	40 "extension_types": "all",

41 "whitelist": [	41 "whitelist": [

42 "CBCC42ABED43A4B58FE3810E62AFFA010EB0349F" // https://crbug.com/538252	42 "CBCC42ABED43A4B58FE3810E62AFFA010EB0349F" // https://crbug.com/538252

43 ]	43 ]

44 },	44 },

45 "allow_usb_devices_permission_interface_class": {	45 "allow_usb_devices_permission_interface_class": {

46 "channel": "dev",	46 "channel": "dev",

47 "extension_types": ["platform_app"],	47 "extension_types": ["platform_app"],

48 "session_types": ["kiosk"]	48 "session_types": ["kiosk"]

49 }	49 },

	50 "signin_screen": [{

	51 "blacklist": [

	52 "9E527CDA9D7C50844E8A5DB964A54A640AE48F98" // Chrome remote desktop

	53 ],

	54 "channel": "dev",

	55 "component_extensions_auto_granted": false,

	56 "extension_types": ["platform_app"],

	57 "location": "policy",

	58 "min_manifest_version": 2,

	59 "platforms": ["chromeos"]

	60 }, {

	61 "channel": "stable",

	62 "component_extensions_auto_granted": false,

	63 "platforms": ["chromeos"],

	64 "whitelist": [

	65 "E24F1786D842E91E74C27929B0B3715A4689A473", // Gnubby component extension .
	asargent_no_longer_on_chrome 2016/11/09 05:50:43 nit: is this a spurious period? (it looks like it nit: is this a spurious period? (it looks like it might push the entire line over 80 chars, but hard to tell in codereview interface) Denis Kuznetsov (DE-MUC) 2016/11/09 13:42:35 Done. Show quoted text On 2016/11/09 05:50:43, Antony Sargent wrote: > nit: is this a spurious period? (it looks like it might push the entire line > over 80 chars, but hard to tell in codereview interface) Done.
	66 "6F9E349A0561C78A0D3F41496FE521C5151C7F71", // Gnubby app

	67 "8EBDF73405D0B84CEABB8C7513C9B9FA9F1DC2CE", // Genius app (help)

	68 "3F50C3A83839D9C76334BCE81CDEC06174F266AF" // Virtual Keyboard

	69 ]
	asargent_no_longer_on_chrome 2016/11/09 05:50:43 FYI, these conditions are logically OR'ed together FYI, these conditions are logically OR'ed together, so this is saying that this feature is allowed if either: -We're on chromeos dev channel with any policy force-install (except remote desktop) OR -We're on chromeos stable channel and the extension matches one of the entries in the whitelist Was that what you intended? BTW, if it wasn't, see this documentation the Devlin recently wrote up: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/chrome/common/extensi... Denis Kuznetsov (DE-MUC) 2016/11/09 13:42:35 Yes, current intent is to enable it on non-stable Show quoted text On 2016/11/09 05:50:43, Antony Sargent wrote: > FYI, these conditions are logically OR'ed together, so this is saying that this > feature is allowed if either: > > -We're on chromeos dev channel with any policy force-install (except remote > desktop) > > OR > > -We're on chromeos stable channel and the extension matches one of the entries > in the whitelist > > Was that what you intended? > > BTW, if it wasn't, see this documentation the Devlin recently wrote up: > > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/chrome/common/extensi... Yes, current intent is to enable it on non-stable channels with less restrictions so that early adopters can try their own extensions, but have only explicitly whitelisted extensions on stable channel.
	70 }]

50 }	71 }

OLD	NEW