OpenQuestions [#2472879]

OpenQuestions is a Features-based voting module designed to select the toughest of user-submitted questions. Users submit questions for politicians (or others) and then those in the Expert role vote on the questions. Each vote by an Expert is revisioned, public, and can be commented on. That helps ensure that Experts are voting up the toughest questions, not just ones they agree with.

This process stands in sharp contrast to efforts like the White House's "Open for Questions", Reddit's "Ask Me Anything", etc. where questions are voted up based on popularity and votes aren't public.

See the project page and the README for more information.

GIT command:
git clone --branch 7.x-1.x http://git.drupal.org/sandbox/TolstoyDotCom/2467883.git openquestions

Project page:
https://www.drupal.org/sandbox/tolstoydotcom/2467883

Screenshots:
http://openquestions.us/screenshots

Automated review:
http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpgitdrupalorgsandboxtolstoydotcom2467883git

The automated review shows some minor stylistic issues. The "There must be exactly one blank line after the file comment" is in openquestions_common.module, which is just a placeholder module file. The "concat" and "case breaking" issues in openquestions.module are due to another module's code that I inserted into that file in order to change its behavior. I decided not to change the code just for stylistic reasons; if I did so, it would make it harder to determine the changes I had made by comparing it to the original code. The other issues are due to code generated by Features and are likewise simply stylistic in nature.

Manual reviews of other projects:
https://www.drupal.org/node/2450089#comment-9834501
https://www.drupal.org/node/2294213#comment-9829569
https://www.drupal.org/node/2471060#comment-9823945

Comments

Comment #1

TolstoyDotCom CreditAttribution: TolstoyDotCom commented 17 April 2015 at 03:53

Issue summary:

View changes

Comment #2

PA robot CreditAttribution: PA robot commented 17 April 2015 at 04:23

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

TolstoyDotCom CreditAttribution: TolstoyDotCom commented 17 April 2015 at 17:13

Issue summary:	View changes
Issue tags:		+PAreview: review bonus

Comment #4

darol100 CreditAttribution: darol100 commented 20 April 2015 at 22:13

@TolstoyDotCom,

I do not know see any blockers from your application.

Automated Review

There are some minor complains for in the automatic review and the developer is aware of them.

Manual Review

Individual user account

Yes: Follows the guidelines for individual user accounts.

No duplication

Yes: Does not cause 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

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

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:

Your documentation is great but you should have an easier way to read your documentation, I think it should be more straight forward. Or at least have a long version of the documentation and short documentation.
Something else you should consider is adding links in your documentation so the user can jump sections. If you decide to that you probably will not be able to to read it from the README.txt
I would recommend you to fix all the complains from the pareview.sh because Drupal Coding Standards are "best practice" and maybe for you is different but for someone that is writing a patch for your module it might be difficult for them to read it. A easy way to auto-format your code is using the coder module. Here is a great article that talks about it... https://www.drupal.org/node/2148421

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.

Comment #5

darol100 CreditAttribution: darol100 commented 20 April 2015 at 22:13

Status:

Needs review

» Reviewed & tested by the community

Comment #6

TolstoyDotCom CreditAttribution: TolstoyDotCom commented 24 April 2015 at 21:41

@darol100: thanks for the review. I moved the "Quick installation" in the README to right after the "Brief Description" so casual users don't need to read through so much text. I also got rid of some of the stylistic issues raised by the automated review. The only issues raised by the pareview are from auto-generated Features code and if I changed those the changes would be overwritten when I re-generated the Features module.

Comment #7

klausi

he/him||they/them

German

🇦🇹 Vienna

CreditAttribution: klausi commented 4 May 2015 at 20:35

Status:

Reviewed & tested by the community

» Fixed

manual review:

openquestions_node_view(): instead of calling drupal_add_css() you should #attached on the $node->content render array. See https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/developer--topics--forms_api_reference...
openquestions_get_entity_multiple_tids(): this is quite expensive since you will load a full term object for every tid. Just get the value array from the field and extract the term IDs from there?
openquestions_disqus_add_disqus_code(): do not include javascript inline like that, use a dedicated JS file and pass down variables with Drupal.settings. See https://www.drupal.org/node/756722

But otherwise looks good to me.

Thanks for your contribution, TolstoyDotCom!

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.