warning: array_key_exists() [function.array-key-exists]: The second argument should be either an array or an object in /u2/drupa

warning: array_key_exists() [function.array-key-exists]: The second argument should be either an array or an object in /u2/drupals/dcore14/sites/all/modules/chatroom/chatroom.module on line 1677.

Try explaining to a client why this message should show up on their site 506 times (yeah he counted).

they have chatroom 6.x-2.12, installed and according to them, -- as far as I can tell -- they recieved this message after user 1 was kicked and the kicking expired.

Note that the code in the referenced function:

1675 function chatroom_chat_is_kicked_user($chat_user, $node) {
1676   $key_to_check = $chat_user->uid ? $chat_user->uid : session_id();
1677   if (array_key_exists($key_to_check, $node->chat->kicked_list)) {
1678     $kicked_period = variable_get('chatroom_kicked_period', 60 * 5);
1679     $kicked_time = $node->chat->kicked_list[$key_to_check]->modified;
1680     if (($kicked_time + $kicked_period) > time()) {
1681       return TRUE;
1682     } 
1683   } 
1684   return FALSE;
1685 } 

This code uses a very sloppy coding practice: Referencing an element of an element of a node item variable without a single sanity check.

It's terrible coding style, and because it uses array_key_exists, it needs to protect users from error messages that are caused by assumptions. The code really should literally have a full sanity check and read something like:

1675 function chatroom_chat_is_kicked_user($chat_user, $node) {
1676   $key_to_check = $chat_user->uid ? $chat_user->uid : session_id();
1677   if (($node)                     &&
1678       ($node->chat)               &&
1679       ($node->chat->kicked_list)  &&
1680       (array_key_exists($key_to_check, $node->chat->kicked_list)) 
1681   { 
1682     $kicked_period = variable_get('chatroom_kicked_period', 60 * 5);
1683     $kicked_time = $node->chat->kicked_list[$key_to_check]->modified;
1684     if (($kicked_time + $kicked_period) > time()) {
1685       return TRUE;
1686     }
1687   }
1688   return FALSE;
1689 }

No time to patch, besides there are at least 10 other places in the code that make similar assumptions without any sanity checks.

Grrr.