Needs review
Project:
Drupal.org security advisory coverage applications
Component:
module
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
18 Sep 2026 at 14:11 UTC
Updated:
29 Sep 2026 at 07:53 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
Comments
Comment #2
balaji natarajan commentedI am applying for permission to opt projects into security advisory coverage.
Project:
https://www.drupal.org/project/cxo_ai_content_editor
Source code:
https://git.drupalcode.org/project/cxo_ai_content_editor
Branch for review: 1.x
CXO AI Content Editor provides editor-controlled AI rewriting suggestions
for selected plain-text content fields using Drupal AI's configured provider.
Editors generate a suggestion, review it, and choose whether to insert
or discard it. Content is saved through the normal content-editing form.
Administrators can select the allowed fields. The module includes
permission checks and entity and field access checks.
GitLab CI pipeline #966953 passed:
https://git.drupalcode.org/project/cxo_ai_content_editor/-/pipelines/966953
Manual checks of the editing workflow are underway. I am keeping this
application Active until the remaining permission checks are complete.
Comment #3
balaji natarajan commentedComment #4
balaji natarajan commentedCorrection to my earlier description: this application is now marked Needs review. Manual permission checks remain in progress.
Comment #5
vishal.kadamComment #6
avpadernoComment #7
avpadernoThank you for applying!
Before giving links helpful to understand how the review process works, what to expect from a review, and what to do to avoid a review takes more time than needed, I would like to thank all the reviewers for the work they do.
These applications are volunters-driven, which also means it is not possible to predict when an application will be marked fixed and the applicant will get the permission to opt projects into security advisory policy. While we aim to make an application as quick as possible, it is also important for us that more people review the project used for an application. In this way, we make sure applications do not miss some important points that should be instead reported.
Applications are not meant to be complete debugging sessions that eliminate every existing bug, though. I apologize if sometimes applications seem to go into too-detailed reviews.
Please read Review process for security advisory coverage: What to expect for more details and Security advisory coverage application checklist to understand what reviewers look for. Tips for ensuring a smooth review gives some hints for a smoother review.
The important notes are the following.
Keep in mind that once the project is opted into security advisory coverage, only Security Team members may change coverage.
To the reviewers
Please read How to review security advisory coverage applications, Application workflow, What to cover in an application review, and Tools to use for reviews.
The important notes are the following.
For new reviewers, I would also suggest to first read In which way the issue queue for coverage applications is different from other project queues.
Comment #8
balaji natarajan commentedHi avpaderno,
Thank you for the guidance.
GitLab CI is enabled. Pipeline #966953 passed, including PHPCS:
https://git.drupalcode.org/project/cxo_ai_content_editor/-/pipelines/966953
The branch for review is 1.x. I will make the commits myself while
the application is open and address reviewer feedback.
The remaining manual permission checks are still in progress.
Comment #9
balaji natarajan commentedHi avpaderno,
I Completed a manual permission visibility test using a non-administrator
Content editor account.
Without “Use CXO AI content suggestions,” the content remained editable
but AI suggestions buttons were absent. After granting the permission,
the buttons appeared on the allowed fields.
Direct endpoint access testing remains outstanding.
Comment #10
vishal.kadam1. FILE: cxo_ai_content_editor.module
For a new module that aims to be compatible with Drupal 10 and Drupal 11, I would rather implement hooks as class methods as described in Support for object oriented hook implementations using autowired services.
2. FILE: src/Form/ContentEditorSettingsForm.php
With Drupal 10 and Drupal 11, there is no longer need to use #default_value for each form element, when the parent class is ConfigFormBase: It is sufficient to use #config_target, as in the following code.
Using that code, it is no longer needed to save the configuration values in the form submission handler: The parent class will take care of that.
Comment #11
balaji natarajan commentedHi Vishal
Thank you for the review. I have addressed both points on branch 1.x.
1. Hook implementation:
Moved the form-alter logic into src/Hook/ContentEditorHooks.php using
#[Hook('form_alter')] and registered the class as an autowired service.
Retained a small procedural bridge marked #[LegacyHook] for Drupal 10
and Drupal 11.0 compatibility, following the linked change record.
2. Settings form:
Replaced explicit #default_value assignments with #config_target.
Removed the custom submitForm() implementation so ConfigFormBase
handles saving. ConfigTarget transformations preserve the checkbox
list, boolean, and integer values.
Added regression tests for configuration loading/saving and access
checks through both hook entry points. Local PHPCS, PHPStan, and
16 unit tests passed. AI suggestion generation was also verified
on the local Drupal site.
Latest pipeline:
https://git.drupalcode.org/project/cxo_ai_content_editor/-/pipelines/971125
Please review the updated implementation. Thank you.
Comment #12
balaji natarajan commentedHi Vishal and reviewers, I’m following up on the changes I posted above. The application is marked Needs review, and branch 1.x is ready for another look. Please let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thank you for your time.
Comment #13
vishal.kadamRest seems fine to me.
Please wait for other reviewers and Project Moderator to take a look and if everything goes fine, you will get the role.