[D7] Static Content Manager

We are currently quite busy with all the project applications and we prefer projects with a review bonus. Please help reviewing and put yourself on the high priority list, then we will take a look at your project right away :-)

Also, you should get your friends, colleagues or other community members involved to review this application. Let them go through the review checklist and post a comment that sets this issue to "needs work" (they found some problems with the project) or "reviewed & tested by the community" (they found no major flaws).

I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.

Automated Review
http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpgitdrupalorgsandboxpopams2352633git
Review of the 7.x-1.x branch (commit ced0e48):

No issues found.

Manual Review

• Module get install properly.
• Creating and Managing of static page functionality working.

Looks good to me.

No duplication
This module appears to bypass the features of the core node system. I've been thinking about this and my normal workflow in this situation is to:

1. Use nodes (potentially with no HTML tags removed).
2. Enable caching (meaning this module could not really be argued to increased performance).
3. Use UUID Features to support exporting
4. Templates and classes based on UUID rather than node ID

Could you explain a bit more why your module does not use drupal entities?

when cloning the folder name do static_content_manager

and offline $form = array();
Missing an advertisement forms, but further down the code below already have

I'm not going to make a review, more of a question - why do you require CKEditor? I had WYSIWYG installed and it overrides CKEditor anyway - isn't it better that the user can decide if they need an editor or not?

Assigning to myself to review.

Automated Review

[Best practice issues identified by pareview.sh are fine.

Manual Review

Individual user account

May be the guidelines for individual user accounts.There are two contributors of this project.Please specify which user needs the git vetted role because both guys has the commits.

No duplication

May be module duplication and/or fragmentation.Please specify the difference betweeen the static page module https://www.drupal.org/project/static_page

Master Branch

Yes follow the guidelines for master branch.

Licensing

Yes Follows the licensing requirements.

3rd party assets/code

Yes follows the guidelines for 3rd party assets/code.

README.txt/README.md

Yes : Follows the guidelines for in-project documentation and/or the README Template.

Code long/complex enough for review

Yes: Follows the guidelines for project length and complexity.

Secure code

No : Does not meets the security requirements.: List of security issues identified.]

1. (+)static_content_manage.admin.inc : _static_content_manager_theme_page : This function is rendering the page title, page path without any sanity check.So Please add a check_plain on the single page title and page path. Screenshot attached.

Coding style & Drupal API usage

[List of identified issues in no particular order. Use (*) and (+) to indicate an issue importance. Replace the text below by the issues themselves:

1. (*) There is a seperate branch 7.x-1 branch that you need to remove.Use the below commands
   

   git checkout 7.x-1.x
   git branch -D 7.x-1
   git push origin :7.x-1

2.   $items['static_content_manager/%'] = array(
       'title callback' => 'static_content_manager_page_title',
       'title arguments' => array(1),
       // The page callback also invokes drupal_set_title() in case.
       // The menu router's title is overridden by a menu link.
       'page callback' => 'static_content_manager_page_view',
       'page arguments' => array(1),
       'access callback' => TRUE,
       'file' => 'includes/static_content_manager.pages.inc',
     );

   The access callback to this page is TRUE.As Its seems that static pages to be visible to all users.So Just add some loosely coupled permission here like "access content" to this path.

The starred items (*) are fairly big issues and warrant going back to Needs Work. Items marked with a plus sign (+) are important and should be addressed before a stable project release. The rest of the comments in the code walkthrough are recommendations.

If added, please don't remove the security tag, we keep that for statistics and to show examples of security problems.

This review uses the Project Application Review Template.

Added security tag due to #13 so that we can keep this information for learning for later reviewers.
As I am not a git administrator, so I would recommend you, please help to review other project applications to get a review bonus. This will put you on the high priority list, then git administrators will take a look at your project right away :-)

Hi PopaMS,
good job.
the module works perfectly.
just one doubt, how is it different from Basic Page(content type)?

Working fine to me.

While duplication is bad and we should definitely point that out it is not an application blocker. Anything else that you found or should this be RTBC instead?

Hi @klausi,

There is no other blocker in this module. We should move it to RTBC.

Thanks for your contribution, PopaMS!

I updated your account so you can promote this to a full project and also create new projects as either a sandbox or a "full" project.

Here are some recommended readings to help with excellent maintainership:

• Dries' post on Responsible maintainers
• Best practices for creating and maintaining projects
• Maintaining a drupal.org project with Git
• Commit messages - providing history and credit
• Release naming conventions.
• Helping maintainers in the issue queues

You can find lots more contributors chatting on IRC in #drupal-contribute. So, come hang out and stay involved!

Thanks, also, for your patience with the review process. Anyone is welcome to participate in the review process. Please consider reviewing other projects that are pending review. I encourage you to learn more about that process and join the group of reviewers.

Thanks to the dedicated reviewer(s) as well.