Blocked from updating snap due to some auto revision I didn't trigger?


My snippetpixie snap somehow got a revision #44 created on 15th Jan, which then went into “Manual review requested” status.

I didn’t do anything to trigger that revision, and didn’t request the manual review.

I was pinged at the time, so left a comment that same day…

“I didn’t trigger this build/upload, did someone in the Snapcraft team do this?”.

I didn’t get any response.

On the 28th Jan I wanted to start testing builds for new architectures, so I triggered revision #45 which was instantly auto-rejected because #44 was in manual review.

I manually rejected #44 in the hope that #45 could be released, but nope…

“Rejected. Automated review found 0 errors and 1 warnings. Rejected automatically after manual rejection from revision 44.”

On the off-chance that this is perhaps a bug in the store I triggered another revision to be built, alas #46 was also rejected because #44 had been manually rejected.

So all I could do was request a manual review of #46.

Please could some kind soul take a look at what happened with snippetpixie that triggered the initial manual review problem, and advise on how I can get it unstuck?

Does your revision #44 have a “reject and remove from review queue” control button at the bottom of the page ? If so, try using that to unwedge things.

You may need to go to to see/use that control.

If you don’t see it let me know and I’ll fix things on the Store side (may take a bit as I’m afk at the moment).

  • Daniel

Oh wait, you said you did exactly this. I’ll have a look in a bit then

I’ve manually approved rev 46 which should unblock things.

1 Like

Awesome, thanks for your help @roadmr.

Any idea why #44 was created and went straight into review?

#44 was built automatically by which uses as a backend/build farm (I’m unsure about what triggered it - maybe a code commit? would have to look at the build log in more detail). Probably got held for review due to use of passthrough.

  • Daniel

Just triple checked, no commits to develop, master or anywhere else on the repo.

The only thing I can think of is that I’d had an email a few days before saying some dependencies had had updates for security and that I should re-build the snap. However, I hadn’t got around to that yet, so wondered whether there was some automatic thing going on there that forced a re-build?

Can’t remember for sure why I had to use passthrough to get autostart working, maybe because autostart didn’t land until snapd 2.32.4, and so wasn’t available in 18.04 for some time.

I’ll see if I can get apps.snippetpixie.autostart working and can stop using passthrough.

AFAIK each source: line in a snapcraft yaml is watched by, along with the main branch that you registered …

your snapcraft.yaml points to the desktop helpers which probably had a fix/change applied and that perhaps triggered a build ?


What I do know is that I just received another “hey, dependencies updated for security, go rebuild would ya?” email, hit the old “Build manually now” button, and now have an email telling me…

Manual review requested for v1.2.2 (47) upload of snippetpixie.

So, I guess I’m back in the blocked state until that goes through review again, likely because of that one passthrough usage warning.

@roadmr approved this for you, but the review pointed out a legitimate problem. It has this in its snap.yaml:

    autostart: snippetpixie_snippetpixie.desktop
      autostart: snippetpixie_snippetpixie.desktop

Please note that passthrough is only valid in snapcraft.yaml, not meta/snap.yaml. I don’t know if this is a bug in snapcraft (if so, please file it if you haven’t already done so) or something else with your snap. If you remove that, then you snap will pass automated review.

1 Like

Thank you @roadmr!

Ooh, that looks like some bug in snapcraft then, as I only use passthrough to set autostart in the snapcraft.yaml, don’t set autostart elsewhere, and don’t do any monkey business with the resulting meta/snap.yaml.


1 Like

@sergiusens and @cjp256 - fyi

1 Like

It was indeed a bug in snapcraft, sorry about that! A fix for this issue has been made and PR’d at