In #3086148: Make scaffold "extra" data key conform with plugin command name, we are attempting to rename the key to drupal-scaffold but we face an issue with testing. One of the approaches to solve the testing problem would be to support both keys for a while. More details in #3086148-4: Make scaffold "extra" data key conform with plugin command name.
Support "drupal-scaffold" as an alternate key to specify scaffolding options if "composer-scaffold" is not present.
Consider if this is the right approach for #3086148: Make scaffold "extra" data key conform with plugin command name.
None
None
None
Drupal's scaffold option may now be specified using "drupal-scaffold".
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #2 | 3086201-2.patch | 1.27 KB | hussainweb |
Comments
Comment #2
hussainwebHere's the patch.
Comment #3
greg.1.anderson commentedI don't think we need to do this; we can just fix the tests in #3086148: Make scaffold "extra" data key conform with plugin command name.
Comment #4
hussainweb@greg.1.anderson, when the Shell script runs composer install on the composer.json in those fixtures, it clones the scaffold plugin from https://github.com/drupal/core-composer-scaffold. I am assuming that that repo is mirrored from Drupal core (just the sub-path). This is why I made this change so that it can appear in the Github repo after which tests can work.
Is my understanding correct?
Comment #5
greg.1.anderson commentedYour understanding is correct. See the fix I made in #3086148: Make scaffold "extra" data key conform with plugin command name. Instead of cloning through Packagist and GitHub, the test instead insures that the Scaffold plugin from the code being tested is used via a path repository.
Comment #6
hussainwebYeah, I checked there. I had thought about that as well as mentioned in the comment but didn't realise we can do it cleanly this way (without changing the composer.json file). Nice one! :)
Comment #7
hussainwebYeah, I checked there. I had thought about that as well as mentioned in the comment but didn't realise we can do it cleanly this way (without changing the composer.json file). Nice one! :)
Comment #8
greg.1.anderson commentedCool, we will continue on the original issue then.