[D7] Addressfield_ro

There are some errors reported by automated review tools, did you already check them? See http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpgitdrupalorgsandboxk_zoltan2136505git

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.

Closing due to lack of activity. If you are still working on this application, you should fix all known problems and then set the status to "Needs review". (See also the project application workflow).

I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.

Hello,

Line no.142 in the file addressfield_ro.import.inc has the variable name typed wrongly as $$counter. See the line below

$context['message'] = t('Processing item %count', array('%count' => $$counter));

Automated Review

Review of the 7.x-1.x branch (commit e81f182):

Codespell has found some spelling errors in your code.

./includes/addressfield_ro.csv:3853: Sergent ==> Sergeant

No automated test cases were found, did you consider writing Simpletests or PHPUnit tests? This is not a requirement but encouraged for professional software development.

But as you mention, CSV file can't be corrected since that is the name of the location. So it's ok.

Manual Review

Individual user account

Yes: Follows the guidelines for individual user accounts.

No duplication

No: Causes module duplication and/or fragmentation.

Master Branch

Yes: Follows the guidelines for master branch.

Licensing

Yes: Follows the licensing requirements.

3rd party assets/code

Yes: Follows the guidelines for 3rd party assets/code.

README.txt/README.md

No: Does not follow 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

Yes: Meets the security requirements.

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. (*) Major finding, needs work
2. (+) Release blocker
3. Just a recommendation
4. ...]

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.

Suggestions: You can use db_merge instead of db_insert and db_update in addressfield_ro_address_save function.

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 :-)

First, thanks for your contribution.Awesome project!
Applicant can't set the application status to RTBC. See the application workflow https://www.drupal.org/node/532400
you can also invite your friends/office colleagues to review the project applications and that will also speedup the review process.
I would suggest you to take review bonus to come in Admin Radar.

Removing the non-review comments from the issue summary.

manual review:

1. project page is too short. Why can't this be part of the core addressfield module? Why do you have your own database table? Why do you have to hard code a list of addresses and cannot allow any address? Please add the use case to the project page.
2. addressfield_ro_delete_form(): do not use die(), the drupal_not_found() is enough here.

But otherwise looks good to me. Removing review bonus tag, you can add it again if you have done another 3 reviews of other projects.

Assigning to MiSc as he might have time to take a final look at this.

Looks ok for me, just a question - who is looking for the git vetted user access? I see there are three different contributors in the project.

Changing status to "postponed" based on #22.

Really don't know how to handle an application then there are more than one commiter, I assign this to klausi for another input.

Looks like k_zoltan did enough work on this so that we can give him the git vetted user role, so this should not be a problem.

no other objections for more than a week, so ...

Thanks for your contribution, k_zoltan!

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:

• Dries' post on Responsible maintainers
• Best practices for creating and maintaining projects
• Maintaining a drupal.org project with Git
• Commit messages - providing history and credit
• Release naming conventions.
• Helping maintainers in the issue queues

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.