This module is for people who have need of some static pages on their site.
It provides an easy way to create/manage these pages.

1. Allows you to declare static pages in the administration interface.

2. Allows 3 different display modes:
- Use theming layer - Allows you to add static content that will display as a standard themed Drupal page.
- Do not use theming layer - Allows you to add static content that will be displayed on the screen as is. This method is the same as declaring a whole HTML page.
- Page disabled - Declared static page is not accessible.

3. Provide tools to manage the static content in the administration interface.

4. Provides feature functionality to export the created static content.


git clone: git clone --branch 7.x-1.x static_content_manager

Automated Review

Vetted user access request is for user: PopaMS

Members fund testing for the Drupal project. Drupal Association Learn more


PopaMS’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
PA robot’s picture

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.

suhel.rangnekar’s picture

Automated Review
Review of the 7.x-1.x branch (commit ced0e48):

No issues found.

Manual Review

  • Module get install properly.
  • Creating and Managing of static page functionality working.

Looks good to me.

Ben Howes’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

No duplication
This module appears to bypass the features of the core node system. I've been thinking about this and my normal workflow in this situation is to:

  1. Use nodes (potentially with no HTML tags removed).
  2. Enable caching (meaning this module could not really be argued to increased performance).
  3. Use UUID Features to support exporting
  4. Templates and classes based on UUID rather than node ID

Could you explain a bit more why your module does not use drupal entities?

PopaMS’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
PopaMS’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review

@Ben Howes: The ideea behind the module implies that there will never be to many of those pages in your site as they are static. As an example a good use for such a page would be a 404-error page. That is the reason I considered not to use nodes, as using a content type for just 2-3 nodes would be a waste when you already have lots of CTs for more important things. The module is structured so you can have those pages up and running with almost no configurations, and if needed export them with ease.
As for a non-fieldable custom entity I pondered on this a little if I should / should not implement one, but I did not find a good reason that would conpensate for the increase in overhead and decided to keep it simple. If you provide some good reasons to use a custom entity I would gladly transition to them.

Thank you for the review.

PopaMS’s picture

@suhel.rangnekar Thank you for the review.

xdevx’s picture

when cloning the folder name do static_content_manager

xdevx’s picture

and offline $form = array();
Missing an advertisement forms, but further down the code below already have

Marcus_Johansson’s picture

I'm not going to make a review, more of a question - why do you require CKEditor? I had WYSIWYG installed and it overrides CKEditor anyway - isn't it better that the user can decide if they need an editor or not?

PopaMS’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
naveenvalecha’s picture

Assigned: Unassigned » naveenvalecha
Issue summary: View changes
Issue tags: +#DCM2015

Assigning to myself to review.

naveenvalecha’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work
90.46 KB

Automated Review

[Best practice issues identified by are fine.

Manual Review

Individual user account
May be the guidelines for individual user accounts.There are two contributors of this project.Please specify which user needs the git vetted role because both guys has the commits.
No duplication
May be module duplication and/or fragmentation.Please specify the difference betweeen the static page module
Master Branch
Yes follow the guidelines for master branch.
Yes Follows the licensing requirements.
3rd party assets/code
Yes follows the guidelines for 3rd party assets/code.
Yes : Follows the guidelines for in-project documentation and/or the README Template.
Code long/complex enough for review
Yes: Follows the guidelines for project length and complexity.
Secure code
No : Does not meets the security requirements.: List of security issues identified.]
  1. (+) : _static_content_manager_theme_page : This function is rendering the page title, page path without any sanity check.So Please add a check_plain on the single page title and page path. Screenshot attached.
Coding style & Drupal API usage
[List of identified issues in no particular order. Use (*) and (+) to indicate an issue importance. Replace the text below by the issues themselves:
  1. (*) There is a seperate branch 7.x-1 branch that you need to remove.Use the below commands
    git checkout 7.x-1.x
    git branch -D 7.x-1
    git push origin :7.x-1
  2.   $items['static_content_manager/%'] = array(
        'title callback' => 'static_content_manager_page_title',
        'title arguments' => array(1),
        // The page callback also invokes drupal_set_title() in case.
        // The menu router's title is overridden by a menu link.
        'page callback' => 'static_content_manager_page_view',
        'page arguments' => array(1),
        'access callback' => TRUE,
        'file' => 'includes/',

    The access callback to this page is TRUE.As Its seems that static pages to be visible to all users.So Just add some loosely coupled permission here like "access content" to this path.

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.

This review uses the Project Application Review Template.

naveenvalecha’s picture

Assigned: naveenvalecha » Unassigned
PopaMS’s picture

@artmix fixed both issues.

Thank you for the review.

PopaMS’s picture

@Marcus_Johansson at first I thought it would be easier for users if they had a Rich Text Editor out of the box but as you said maybe not all need it and who need it can easily enable it. I removed the dependency as it is not really needed.

Thank you for your idea.

PopaMS’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
naveenvalecha’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
Issue tags: +PAReview: security

Added security tag due to #13 so that we can keep this information for learning for later reviewers.
As I am not a git administrator, so I would recommend you, please help to review other project applications to get a review bonus. This will put you on the high priority list, then git administrators will take a look at your project right away :-)

fabian.fernandes_30’s picture

Hi PopaMS,
good job.
the module works perfectly.
just one doubt, how is it different from Basic Page(content type)?

cllamas’s picture

Working fine to me.

pankajsachdeva’s picture

This module is duplicate of Static Page module. It has the same functionality as Static Page.
pankajsachdeva’s picture

Status: Needs review » Closed (duplicate)
klausi’s picture

Status: Closed (duplicate) » Needs review

While duplication is bad and we should definitely point that out it is not an application blocker. Anything else that you found or should this be RTBC instead?

pankajsachdeva’s picture

Hi @klausi,

There is no other blocker in this module. We should move it to RTBC.

pankajsachdeva’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community
DamienMcKenna’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Thanks for your contribution, PopaMS!

I updated your account so you can promote this to a full project and also create new projects as either a sandbox or a "full" project.

Here are some recommended readings to help with excellent maintainership:

You can find lots more contributors chatting on IRC in #drupal-contribute. So, come hang out and stay involved!

Thanks, also, for your patience with the review process. Anyone is welcome to participate in the review process. Please consider reviewing other projects that are pending review. I encourage you to learn more about that process and join the group of reviewers.

Thanks to the dedicated reviewer(s) as well.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.