Problem/Motivation
Version constraints on the seo_checklist_optional_modules submodule are not being kept up to date, and the module itself won't allow removal of an "optional" module for a site that enables this since the dependent modules are required in the info file.
Is it possible to deprecate and remove the module without harming sites that have it installed? The module itself does nothing, but the dependencies would need to be unpacked to the project's composer.json.
We could recreate the functionality in a recipe that requires and possibly configures the modules needed for the checklist, without the long term maintainability of those dependencies.
Steps to reproduce
Proposed resolution
Remaining tasks
User interface changes
API changes
Data model changes
Issue fork seo_checklist-3473560
Show commands
Start within a Git clone of the project using the version control instructions.
Or, if you do not have SSH keys set up on git.drupalcode.org:
Comments
Comment #2
traviscarden commentedYes, I think we should deprecate
seo_checklist_optional_modules. It think it was mostly created for convenience for evaluators and for local development. I would never recommend using it in production. I think recipes present some much more interesting possibilities.If anyone is using the module in production, we can't remove it without potentially breaking their site. And we don't want to move the dependencies to our main
composer.json, which would exacerbate the problem in several respects. I think it would be best to remove it in a 6.x branch where we can introduce a lot of the other major changes that seem to be coming.If the version constraints in the module pose a problem in the meantime, we can loosen or even eliminate them (e.g., change
^2to>=2.0or even*).Comment #4
thejimbirch commentedI added a merge request that deprecates the submodule based on what I could find https://www.drupal.org/node/3215042
After this is merged, we need to publish the change order here: https://www.drupal.org/node/3475953
If I could have your review @traviscarden, I'd appreciate it. This is my first time doing this.
Comment #6
traviscarden commentedOh, interesting. I haven't done this before either, but it looks right based on the documentation you pointed to. Fixed.