none
Outlook add-in AppSource submission rejection reason 7.15 when script tag is dynamically added to page RRS feed

  • Question

  • We are trying to submit our Outlook add-in for a enterprise-level web app. One reason the AppSource store submission is rejected is reason 7.15 - All Office Add-ins must use the Microsoft-hosted Office.js file.
    Look for 7.15 on https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office/dev/store/validation-policies

    We have posted the following information with our resubmission, but it was rejected again, with no additional explanation or feedback about why. We have not been able to get clarification or responses by email.

    We are using the hosted office.js. Our add-in page dynamically loads it from:
    https://appsforoffice.microsoft.com/lib/1.1/hosted/office.js

    Our add-in is one page in a larger Angular web app, which has a base template that has regular script tags in the head. We do not want to load office.js on every page of the larger web app. For our add-in page only, we dynamically add the script. This has worked reliably, using the below:

    async ngOnInit() {
        const script = document.createElement('script');
        script.type = 'text/javascript';
        script.src = 'https://appsforoffice.microsoft.com/lib/1.1/hosted/office.js';
        document.head.appendChild(script);
        script.onload = async () => {
            this.initialLoad();
        };
    }

    async initialLoad() {
        await Office.onReady();
        // Office.js is loaded. We begin using it
    }

    Also note, the first page that is visible when our add-in is opened, is a SSO/signon page on another subdomain of our enterprise, which we do not want to add office.js.

    My questions are:
    1 - What exact page is Microsoft looking at when deciding if office.js is being referenced correctly? Is it the signon page, or the landing page after signon?
    2 - Does Microsoft verification only look in the original DOM in the head tags, or will it look at scripts added dynamically?
    3 - This explanation has been added in our resubmission, but it appears to be ignored, with no feedback.

    Any other suggestions on why exactly this is rejected, or other contact information where we could discuss this further, would be helpful

    Steve

    Wednesday, September 18, 2019 3:34 PM