Closed (won't fix)
Project:
Drupal.org security advisory coverage applications
Component:
module
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Anonymous (not verified)
Created:
17 Oct 2013 at 16:45 UTC
Updated:
15 Feb 2023 at 02:19 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
Comments
Comment #1
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #2
PA robot commentedThere are some errors reported by automated review tools, did you already check them? See http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpgitdrupalorgsandboxvilepickle2114383git
We are currently quite busy with all the project applications and we prefer projects with a review bonus. Please help reviewing and put yourself on the high priority list, then we will take a look at your project right away :-)
Also, you should get your friends, colleagues or other community members involved to review this application. Let them go through the review checklist and post a comment that sets this issue to "needs work" (they found some problems with the project) or "reviewed & tested by the community" (they found no major flaws).
I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.
Comment #3
Anonymous (not verified) commentedThe module now passes the automated review tool:
http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpgitdrupalorgsandboxvilepickle2114383git
Comment #4
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #5
auworks commentedComment #6
auworks commentedHi vilepickle,
I have corrected the GIT url in your application. It should be http://git.drupal.org/sandbox/vilepickle/2114383.git
Cheers,
Ash
Comment #7
auworks commentedHi mate,
As per drupal guidelines your module should have a minimum of 120 lines of code or 5 functions before it could be reviewed.
Please refer to section 2.3 of this page https://drupal.org/node/1587704
Good luck
Cheers,
Ash
Comment #8
klausiWrong, of course we can review smaller modules, too. We just can't give the git vetted user role away on a short projects, but we can always promote it manually to a full projects and applicants can always come back to us when they have a new project for promotion.
I think I will just remove that paragraph from the review checklist, since that is by no means an application blocker.
Comment #9
Anonymous (not verified) commentedAh, interesting, I missed the part about a module being a certain length for the vetted role.
I'd still like this to be a real module since it is useful and passes standards testing.
Comment #10
auworks commentedThanks for clearing that up klausi...
Comment #11
xqus commentedI have reviewed the module, and can't find anything wrong with it.
I think this project can be promoted to a full project.
Comment #12
xqus commentedOn second thought:
Your module does not implement hook_uninstall().
You should implement hook_uninstall() to delete any variables your module creates like disqus_custom_identifier etc.
Comment #13
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #14
Anonymous (not verified) commentedI have added the uninstall hook to the module and it now removes the variables that get added.
Comment #15
xqus commentedLooks good.
Comment #16
Anonymous (not verified) commentedModule has been updated from D6 to D7 and needs re-review. It was never set to a full project even though it was RTBC...
Comment #17
heddnComment #18
heddnAutomated Review
Best practice issues identified by pareview.sh / drupalcs / coder. There are findings at http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpgitdrupalorgsandboxvilepickle2114383git
Manual Review
The starred items (*) are fairly big issues and warrant going back to Needs Work. Items marked with a plus sign (+) are important and should be addressed before a stable project release. The rest of the comments in the code walkthrough are recommendations.
If added, please don't remove the security tag, we keep that for statistics and to show examples of security problems.
Comment #19
heddnComment #20
Anonymous (not verified) commentedAll issues have been addressed.
As for "No Duplication", this functionality is niche enough for Disqus that it probably shouldn't be in the main Disqus module. As Disqus is meant to be standalone and this use case is for sharing comments between sites, it is a good candidate for a separate module.
Comment #21
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #22
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #23
PA robot commentedGit clone command for the sandbox is missing in the issue summary, please add it.
I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.
Comment #24
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #25
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #26
heddnIf that fails for whatever reason please get back to us and set this back to "needs review".
Comment #27
Anonymous (not verified) commentedI don't agree that it belongs in the existing Disqus project for the reason I stated. Oh well, I'll continue using the module on my own!
Comment #28
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #29
heddnIf the maintainers of disqus module feel similarly, then there's no reason this can't be a separate module. But let's let them help us make that decision. However, if you wish to withdraw this request, that is your option.
Comment #30
adammaloneComment #31
heddnCross-posting. Based on #1175668-38: Add an option to override disqus_identifier, this functionality should be placed in the parent module.