Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.
Replaced deprecated query functions
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#11 | 2873325-11.patch | 5.02 KB | TR |
| |||
#10 | 2873325-10.patch | 5.34 KB | TR |
|
Comments
Comment #2
sathish.redcrackle CreditAttribution: sathish.redcrackle at Red Crackle commentedComment #3
idebr CreditAttribution: idebr at iO commentedComment #4
rpayanmComment #5
rpayanmComment #6
rpayanmComment #7
rpayanmComment #8
andralex CreditAttribution: andralex at EPAM Systems for EPAM Systems commentedI've tested the patch and generally, it works for me as it is fixes database queries deprecations.
What I've found that there is another issue for removal of deprecated functions https://www.drupal.org/project/votingapi/issues/3042715. It is doing almost the same but also fixes other deprecations. Probably we could close this issue or make it as a child.
Another concern is about coding standards. Here are 42 coding standards messages. It would be great if we could fix them.
Comment #9
TR CreditAttribution: TR commented#3042715: Drupal 9 Deprecated Code Report should be narrowed because it is trying to do too many things at once - that makes it hard to review and also makes it conflict with other open issues like this one.
For the replacement of db_ functions, the patch in #6 is better than the solution in #3042715: Drupal 9 Deprecated Code Report because #6 does dependency injection. So we should keep this issue open and get it resolved here and not in #3042715: Drupal 9 Deprecated Code Report
Coding standards should be handled in a separate issue. We should focus on making sure that the patch in #6 does not introduce NEW coding standards problems, however it should not try to fix EXISTING coding standards problems.
Comment #10
TR CreditAttribution: TR commentedHere's a re-roll of #6 that applies to the current HEAD.
I had to make two changes:
Comment #11
TR CreditAttribution: TR commentedLooking at the test results, I see that there are 6 NEW coding standards violations.
These are because the patch in #6 add some unused "use" statements - 6 of them in fact. These aren't needed for the patch, and aren't needed for the code, and the above comments don't say anything about why they were added. They are in fact unneeded.
So here's a re-roll of #10 that removes these unneeded "use" statements. We don't wan to be adding any new coding standards violations.
Comment #12
JordiK CreditAttribution: JordiK commentedPatch in #11 works well - RTBC.
Comment #13
JordiK CreditAttribution: JordiK commentedComment #15
pifagorDone