<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: MV3Replay</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by MV3Replay (@mv3replay).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/mv3replay</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/mv3replay"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>A practical preflight checklist for Manifest V3 extension releases</title>
      <dc:creator>MV3Replay</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 06:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/mv3replay/a-practical-preflight-checklist-for-manifest-v3-extension-releases-384i</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/mv3replay/a-practical-preflight-checklist-for-manifest-v3-extension-releases-384i</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;An extension can work perfectly in development and still fail after packaging. The risky change is often not in the feature code itself. It can be a permission that moved, a host pattern that expanded, a content script that now runs somewhere new, or a browser surface that was never included in the release checklist.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Here is the small preflight review I now use before testing an MV3 release.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  1. Compare the packaged manifests
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Compare the last version you actually shipped with the new packaged version, not only the source manifest.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Check separately:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;required permissions;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;optional permissions;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;required host access;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;optional host access.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A permission moving from optional to required deserves attention even if the set of permission names looks familiar.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  2. List every browser surface
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Turn the manifest into a list of things a person can interact with or that Chrome can start:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;action popup;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;options page;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;side panel;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;background service worker;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;content scripts;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;commands;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;externally connectable pages;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;declarative network rules;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;web-accessible resources.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If a surface changed, add at least one release check for it. This sounds obvious, but it is easy to review the main popup while forgetting an options page or a host-specific content script.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  3. Check where code can now run
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For every content script, compare:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;match patterns;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;excluded matches;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;frames;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;execution world;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;run timing.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The JavaScript file can be unchanged while one of these settings changes the extension's behavior on real sites.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  4. Test the packaged build
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Run the checklist against the same build directory that will be uploaded. A development build can hide packaging, path, minification, or generated-manifest differences.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;At minimum, reload the packaged extension and exercise one path through each changed surface.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  5. Record why each check exists
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Instead of keeping a generic list such as â€œtest the popup,â€ connect each check to a release change:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;host access expanded â†’ test the new host and confirm the old hosts still work;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;service worker declaration changed â†’ test a cold start and a restart;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;popup added â†’ test opening, closing, and the first message to the background;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;web-accessible resource changed â†’ test both the intended page and an unintended page.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This makes the checklist smaller and easier to review than testing everything from memory on every release.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  The small tool I am testing
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I am building MV3 Replay. Its first piece is intentionally limited: a local command-line preflight check that reads an unpacked MV3 extension, lists its important surfaces, and compares two packaged versions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It does not upload code, control the browser, collect analytics, or replace end-to-end testing. The purpose is to generate the checklist above more consistently.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I have not proven demand for it yet. If you maintain a Chrome or Edge extension and already compare builds or run a manual release checklist, I would value a blunt answer: would you try this local check on one release?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Disclosure: I am building MV3 Replay. This article explains the workflow behind the tool and is not a customer testimonial.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>chromeextension</category>
      <category>testing</category>
      <category>opensource</category>
      <category>webdev</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
