User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Steps to reproduce:

This is probably more of a question than a bug. I'm not sure yet.

I've been trying to figure out for a while why Firefox snap is automatically updating with a long delay on several Ubuntu 24.04 installations. Some of these installations are fresh, and some are upgraded from a previous Ubuntu version.

Steps to reproduce:
I expect the new Firefox version to update automatically within a few days of new release.

Actual results:

The longest update delay has been 24 days since the release of a new Firefox version. And very often for more than a week.

The computer has been on almost every day, and I've been waiting for the automatic snap refresh to go through. After some time, I have turned off the computer. Sometimes after half an hour, and sometimes after 2 hours.
Some are computers that I don't normally use myself.

Expected results:

I expect the new Firefox version to update automatically within a few days of release.

I filed a bug report for the snapd package about this issue earlier. https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+bug/2088644

The suspected cause is how phased rollouts are configured by the publisher. In this case Mozilla. Phased rollouts, as I understand it, means "Progressive releases".

So is the update delay possibly due to the Progressive releases configuration, and does Moxilla use this feature in Firefox snap releases? And if so, how long does it take for the planned updates to be 100% installed, and Progressive releases to be finalised.
https://snapcraft.io/docs/progressive-releases

The user agent string is from my normal operating system, which I have kept updated manually. This computer also uses snap Firefox.

Do we do anything on the release side that may explain this? Otherwise I suspect it's a pure snapd level issue and this should be RESOLVED:INVALID

Firefox doesn't use progressive releases for Snap builds. We enable updates on day 1 for new releases, so if there's a delay I assume it's on Canonical's side.

Hi.
Thanks for your help. I appreciate it.