Drupal 9 and Simplenews 3.x compatibility?

Hi !!!
Yes, it does not allow installing the module with composer due to incompatibility with Simplenews 3.x.
Any solution?

Thank you.

Please can someone help

Hi @ReViJa! You need install Simplenews 2.x version. You need to install the 8.x-2.0-beta2 release for Simplenews module to install this module. :). It will not working with 3.0.0-alpha1.

Thank you very much for answering me, I will do that until when they can update it. Thank you.

Subscribing

Yes, this module isn't really maintained actively, but I think it doesn't make sense to update it before 3.x has at least a beta release.

Well, there is a beta of Simplenews 3.x since November.
Any chance that Scheduler will be compatible?
I can't code myself, I'm afraid.
Any alternative ideas for sending Simplenews on a regular basis?

Hi all! I'm starting today on porting this module to 3.x. Hope the community can help review later, and that the maintainer can open a 3.x branch when that time comes.

If there are others working on a 3.x update, please let me know so that we don't duplicate efforts.

I've tested a bit and fixed a few bugs, then I've also cleaned up the code a bit and brought it par with Drupal code standards.

There's TugboatQA config added too, so if you want to give it a spin and do some testing/QA, you can log on to the live preview using the credentials "admin:admin".

I see we have a few tests, but I'm not sure how to invoke them when using gitlab Merge Requests.

Let me know if you find anything not working, and I should be able to fix it. We also have a client testing this version right now, though not in the issue queue.

I've updated the test configuration to use D9.3, should now be possible to test the MR, but might need another commit for it to start doing that.

@berdir where do we see the test results? Will they arrive in the issue queue automatically also when using branches on gitlab?

Sorry, I configured the wrong branch.

https://www.drupal.org/node/263006/qa, try to commit something again.

Yes, that helped. Thanks @berdir!

Tests pass now. Hope the community can review and test and that the maintainer can tag a new branch and release 3.x.

Again, TugboatQA is here if you can't easily test locally. Hit me up on Drupal Slack if you want to discuss how to test the module.

anyway to reroll without the .tugboat file?

Changing the status of the issue to RTBC

I have done the following things

• Setup an environment with
  • drupal 9.3.12
  • simplenews 3.0.0-beta2
  • simplenews_scheduler from the branch of this issue
  • phpunit 9.5.20
  • phpunit drupal core config file + SIMPLETEST_BASE_URL and SIMPLETEST_DB set correctly
• Every test within simplenews_scheduler runs smoothly
• Tested every aspect of the scheduler known to me via the UI and everything worked as expected
• Talked to the main contributer of the branch, svenryen, on Drupal Slack and we both agreed, that this is a fair amount of review
• If we need more test coverage I could provide some in june

I hope, this could lead to a merge and a beta or 3.x release with simplenews 3.x compatibility.

anyway to reroll without the .tugboat file?

May I know the reason why you don't want .tugboat for this module?

Is this a new Drupal requirement? I have not seen tugboat anywhere.

Well then you should check it out and add it to any modules you're maintaining.

https://www.drupal.org/case-study/drupalorg-integration-with-tugboatqa-f...

Tugboat QA simplifies to a great deal the issue review process as you can spin up a test instance of the current issue branch for validation and testing. It's really something every Drupal module should implement.

Search for "View live preview" on this page and you will find Tugboat. User/password is admin/admin.

I gave you maintainer access to create a 3.x release of this. I didn't really check the changes in depth, but you're obviously an experienced contributor/maintainer and #26 provides a pretty extensive record of testing that was one.

From a quick glance at the MR, I see a lot of coding standard related changes that might have been better to keep out of a minimal 3.x port, especially changes that don't really result in a better end result (e.g. fixing comment coding standards on a comments after a } which is not following the coding standards anyway, and using StringTranslationTrait in tests instead of just removing t() altogether in tests). But that's pretty minor, it's very unlikely that 2.x and 1.x will see further work and would benefit from being kept in sync/those changes being done on multiple branches.

Thank you for work on this, much appreciated We are part way through a D9 migration that uses it.

In light of #26 and subsequent comments (housework noted), @svenryen - any thoughts about timeline? And can we do anything to help get it over the finish line?

Let us know - and if we can help we will :)

Merging at the request of JoCowood.