Hi! Thanks for reporting these usability issues. Mutating a thread to talk about different things (first it was about the “unexpected output” error and now you’ve renamed it and pivoted to the binary_filesize error) makes it hard for us to properly work with you on diagnosing and understanding these problems. May I suggest you do the opposite and start a new thread for the binary_filesize thing? Threads can always be joined if they’re deemed to be about the same thing.
For the binary_filesize error, I’d love to know exactly the steps you followed to arrive at this situation, that’ll enable us to fix things, that’d be a great first post in a possible new thread. Actually - We’ve filed this bug with steps to reproduce, if you could confirm this approximates what you did I’d really appreciate it.
For the “unexpected output” thing, we will work on having more detailed output in our logs so we can better diagnose the message. However, the error exposed to the user (you!) could perhaps use some rephrasing. When the automated review software encounters a problem, we have to err on the safe side and assume there’s something wrong with the snap and fail the review. Maybe rather than “Unexpected output” we should say “review tools was unable to process the snap” or something, though unfortunately we do have to keep it somewhat vague; don’t confuse “friendly” with “detailed”, the details of these “unexpected output” errors would not make much sense for users. Rest assured, we do show any output from the tools that would make sense to a developer and enable them to fix problems in their snaps.
Thanks again for helping us improve the snap experience.
