[D7] Special Taxonomy Tagging In Body

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.

hi Shamsher_Alam

Please update your git information, it should pointing to

http://git.drupal.org/sandbox/shamsher327/2487782.git special_taxonomy_tagging_in_body

Thanks

The git URL alone is surely not application blocker, anyone can update that in the issue summary. Please do a real manual review.

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

Yes: Follows the guidelines for in-project documentation and/or the README Template.

Code long/complex enough for review

Module file only has 4 function
No: Does not follow the guidelines for project length and complexity.

Secure code

Yes: Meets the security requirements.

Coding style & Drupal API usage

1. (*) There is some values assigned using the not language constant, please verify if this will be not an issue for
   multilangue sites

             $body = $node->body[LANGUAGE_NONE][0]['value'];
         

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.

Please review the guide lines to tag your project as PAReview: review bonus, https://www.drupal.org/node/1975228, if you have already done some reviews please add them to this issue as explained on the previous link.

working fine.

Working fine for me..

Working fine for me...

Working fine

Working fine

I tried it, it's Working fine for me

Shamsher_Alam, thanks for your contribution, found a typo,
README.txt
Line 5: vocabulry should be vocabulary.
Line 7: page.In, add space between them.
Line 8: all node, I think this should be nodes

Regards

This module seems very useful, but I am having problems with multiple taxonomies, please take a look to it

Description
Once I have several taxonomies tagging doesn't identify the right one.

Steps to test
- Add the following terms: cars, cars_shop, cars_vendors,
- Set up module and to identify taxonomies on a content type
- Add the following to the content type, @car_shop
- It creates a tag to @car instead of @car_shop

Regards

@Shamsher_Alam, there appear to be some formatting errors in your modules comments. I think the PAReview sniffer was updated recently and as a result it is a little more dialed in regarding commenting and other formatting. Pretty simple stuff to fix though.

Also, according to the PAReview, your Git default branch is not set but it appears to be fine when I look at your project page.

Otherwise, I've looked at the code and it appears to be well formed and follows best practices. If anything I would probably move the configuration form code (function special_taxonomy_tagging_in_body_admin_setting_form()) out of the module file and into an inc file to make the module very concise and easy to scan, update, extend but I don't think that's a deal breaker.

Cheers,
Andrew (awasson)

working fine

Working fine for me

Automated Review

Git errors:

• Git default branch is not set, see the documentation on setting a default branch.

Review of the 7.x-1.x branch (commit 99eae6e):

• Coder Sniffer has found some issues with your code (please check the Drupal coding standards).
  

  
  FILE: /Users/matt/PAR/pareview_temp/special_taxonomy_tagging_in_body.module
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  FOUND 4 ERRORS AFFECTING 2 LINES
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    93 | ERROR | [x] No space found before comment text; expected "// Define
       |       |     preg replace patteren" but found "//Define preg replace
       |       |     patteren"
    93 | ERROR | [x] Inline comments must end in full-stops, exclamation
       |       |     marks, or question marks
   127 | ERROR | [x] No space found before comment text; expected "// Define
       |       |     preg replace patteren" but found "//Define preg replace
       |       |     patteren"
   127 | ERROR | [x] Inline comments must end in full-stops, exclamation
       |       |     marks, or question marks
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  PHPCBF CAN FIX THE 4 MARKED SNIFF VIOLATIONS AUTOMATICALLY
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Time: 190ms; Memory: 6.5Mb
  

• 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.

This automated report was generated with PAReview.sh, your friendly project application review script. You can also use the online version to check your project. You have to get a review bonus to get a review from me.

Manual Review

Individual user account

Yes: Follows the guidelines for individual user accounts.

No duplication

No: Causes module duplication and/or fragmentation. I don't see anything that this module can do that the Token module can't. But, duplication is no longer a blocker.

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. Squeaks by our guidelines, even when the duplicate code is taken into account.

Secure code

Not seeing any security problems.

Coding style & Drupal API usage

(+) All of the variables should be prefixed with the namespace of the project.

There is no hook_admin_setting_form(). See https://www.drupal.org/node/1354 for how to document form constructors.

All variable_get() calls should have a default value.

(+) At some point, you will need to take into account vocabulary addition / deletion as well as content addition / deletion.

The settings form title/descriptions are redundant. Think of some better description text.

You don't need to use $GLOBALS['base_url'] in your link functions.

Why use hook_node_insert() / hook_node_update()? Comment needed. Also, these functions are exact duplications of each other?

What about content types that get rid of the body field?

This won't work on multilingual sites, or where the node language is defined. Use the Field API instead of directly poking through $node.

Calling field_attach_update from hook_node_insert() / hook_node_update() is really weird. I'm surprised this works at all.

This should really be an input filter. See https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/modules!filter!filter.api.php/function...

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.

Under the new guidelines, I am keeping this RTBC as there are no security problems. Under the old guidelines, I would probably have pushed this back.

It also looks like RTBC was set w/o a proper review. Assigning to @er.pushpinderrana for a second look, if he has time.

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.

Thanks for your contribution!

I updated your account so you can promote 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.

Thank you to the dedicated reviewer(s) as well.