Problem/Motivation

quickedit.module ends with two newlines

Proposed resolution

Remove one of the extra newlines

Remaining tasks

User interface changes

API changes

Beta phase evaluation

Reference: https://www.drupal.org/core/beta-changes
Issue category Task
Issue priority Minor
Disruption Extremely non-disruptive
CommentFileSizeAuthor
#1 double_newline_in_the-2494561-1.patch509 bytesgoogletorp
Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

googletorp’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review
FileSize
509 bytes
Wim Leers’s picture

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

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work

I realize this is such a tiny change and I hate to be a nudge but the Beta Evaluation is wrong. Allowed changes suggests to me this should be postponed.

alexpott’s picture

The

Unfrozen because it only changes strings.

in the beta evaluation is not correct - no strings are changed. This is just a completely non-disruptive coding standards fix

googletorp’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
cilefen’s picture

@alexpott It may be the https://www.drupal.org/core/beta-changes needs editing. Trivial coding standards fixes are not a category.

googletorp’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review

Hmm, so reading through the beta-evaluation page, I'm not sure that coding standards can go in now, since it's not prioritized. Seems wrong to me, that we can't fix coding standards in beta.

@alexpott should this be postponed?

cilefen’s picture

@googletorp That is my point, exactly. Those priorities have many good reasons to exist. One of those is reducing the workload on the committers by not having them think about trivialities right now. On the other hand, these changes are trivial...

googletorp’s picture

For RC, only criticals or extremely non-disruptive patches can go in. Since this is extremely non-disruptive, it could go in during RC. If it can go in during RC, it should be fine to let it in during Beta.

Maybe beta is missing the extremely non-disruptive condition?

Wim Leers’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

This is so very incredibly trivial that we've already spent more time debating it than it'd have taken a core committer to commit this :)

I appreciate the concern, but in this case, the additional load for committers is as close to zero as it can possibly be. Even more so because it's a single-line patch. We don't need to over-process-ize everything.

googletorp’s picture

@Wim Leers ++

googletorp’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
alexpott’s picture

@Wim Leers I appreciate and understand the sentiment expressed in #10 but incorrectly filled out beta evaluations don't help either. And if I just commit the thing without pushing back then incorrect beta evaluations become acceptable. And yes I think that we need to revisit the beta criteria because as everyone is pointing out - this change is beyond non-disruptive and utterly trivial. But I've had lengthy and fraught discussions about how I've allowed too much disruptive change in since the beta was cut. Everyone wants their trivial and non-disruptive patches to land because they are exactly that. But how do we draw the line?

alexpott’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Committed 132564c and pushed to 8.0.x. Thanks!

Thanks for updating the beta evaluation so it reflects the nature of the change.

  • alexpott committed 132564c on 8.0.x
    Issue #2494561 by googletorp: double newline in the end of quickedit....

Status: Fixed » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 1: double_newline_in_the-2494561-1.patch, failed testing.

alexpott’s picture

Status: Needs work » Fixed
Wim Leers’s picture

Yeah, agreed that this beta evaluation is quiet useless, and actually causes more problems than it solves. Then again, it's more difficult to write a sane beta evaluation for this beyond-trivial patch than it is to write the patch itself. :)

YesCT’s picture

this has come up quite often, and very recently we have updated the docs page on what makes a good and bad novice issue
https://www.drupal.org/core-mentoring/novice-tasks#coding-standards

#2218551: A user should be able to "follow" a Section of content would help people be able to follow changes to policies (or docs pages which have recommendations) like the beta eval and also the novice task page.

We are trying to address the need to triage the novice issue queue... but that is also a work in progress.

We also cannot get issue updates (email notifications) for issues that have a certain component or tag.. which makes triaging something like novice issues additional difficult to stay on top of. ... I cannot find an issue for that. #2410843: Make it possible to announce issues which people can work on, in case they don't have another idea is a bit close. Made #2495111: Follow (subscribe / get notifications) about issues in certain components, or with certain tags though.

Note also though, that something like: #2193871: Create an Action Block for Short Messages for Users & Visitors could "notice" an issue was a task, and notice it did not have a beta, and add a message (warning) that the issue needs a beta evaluation, and link to the docs about it... so that new people would at least have a chance to know an issue might not be ... the best to work on.

xjm’s picture

FWIW, @googletorp is correct and these coding standards cleanups are not in scope for the beta. So similar issues should be postponed, even if they're trivial. Thanks!

Also see: #1518116-81: [meta] Make Core pass Coder Review

xjm’s picture

googletorp’s picture

@xjm Thanks for making this more clear.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

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

neetu morwani’s picture

Assigned: Unassigned » neetu morwani
neetu morwani’s picture

Assigned: neetu morwani » Unassigned