Still getting policy violation warning after 1.6.10 update

Hey I was wondering if people are still getting the policy violation warnings even though they have updated their face with WFS 1.6.10 and gotten them passed through review and back into production. My face has done so yet I still get the warning? Also, I am not even sure is the API/SDK levels are correct?

Anyone have some insight here? Thanks.

1 Like

You also need to update your Companion app to latest SDK which is 34 currently.

Thanks for the reply but I don’t use a companion app. I just want to know if this is correct for the watch face file.

1 Like

It is the same here, some apps I have updated with WFS 1.6.10 were approved by Google but I did not receive the message “The problem due to a policy violation in your app has been fixed” (Translated from German, maybe the title is a little bit different) and the same error message as before appears. Sorry for my bad English. I have other apps where the warning went away. All my updated apps also show target SDK 33

The warning doesn’t show if I click on the app but if I click on the app’s release overview the warning is still there? Is that the same for you? Or is the message entirely gone?

1 Like

Yes, it is the same, but not for all of them. I have released 14 watchfaces and I have updated all of them. Some are still reviewed, some are approved with a warning, some are approved with no warning. Did you receive those messages from Google that the policy violation was fixed?

no, just the generic email that the recent updates have been published but no mention of policy violation fix. I mean what else can we do anyway? The only thing we can do is run our apps through 1.6.10 yeah?

1 Like

I have found out that the warning appears with apps that were also released as “Open Test” (again translated from German. Can you verify that?

I can only guess since I am a newbie with no coding experience

For sure man, I am always guessing here. I hope others can offer some explanations.

1 Like

I only do an internal test track and then production. both still have the warning.

1 Like

Did you update the internal test track also?

no? I just uploaded a new .aab to production track. That should be the only thing that Google cares about I would think.

1 Like

There is no warning on all my apps that don’t use a test track

Hello, after I had submitted the update I got the notifications. The note due to violation of the guidelines disappeared.

Wonderful…looks like just another issue for me, I don’t know what I can do? all you did was just open your app in 1.6.10 and publish a new one, then upload right?

1 Like

yes…open Watchface in 1.6.10, add new versions name and versions code and submit new aab. no changes to the watchface nothing. Only the test on Google takes up to 5 days

1 Like

well, that’s exactly what I did. It sat in review for over 3 days and passed “production”, but I got no mention of fixing policy violations and it’s unclear to me if it meets the new requirements from what you can see in my original post.

Can you send a screenshot of one of the release summary of one of your passed faces? Is the API level and Target SDK the same as what I have?

1 Like

Have you deactivated the internal test track? Or uploaded the update in the test track?
All my warnings are gone now but have seem to have the same level as yours

The only thing I did was…

1.) update my WFS to 1.6.10
2.) open an existing watch face that has passed into production before into the updated WFS 1.6.10
3.) Publish a new .AAB file in WFS 1.6.10
4.) in Google Play Console, opened the app (watch face) I wanted to update with the new .AAB
5.) created a new Production track (Wear OS) and uploaded the new .AAB file

Waited 3 days “in review” and then it passed and was in “production”.

I didn’t mess with any of my internal tracks/test tracks or anything.

After it passed into production, the warning is still there and I have yet to receive any emails telling me I have fixed the policy violation issue.

*If there is anyone here who can simply validate that they did the same thing or offer any input that would be great. Or is this some trade secret that I need to figure out myself?

1 Like