Make link-types pluggable

+1 subscribing

>Sometimes you just want to keep things simple and not bother with a token -- this patch adds this callback type.

This would be a CSRF vulnerability, so I don't think it's a good idea ;)

but your example isn't idempotent - and most won't be.

Your described example adds something to the cart, so the cart isn't the same anymore afterwards. Thus it's not idempotent.

I don't see the problem with added tokens. Just make use of the helper function for outputting links - I suppose there is such a helper.. ;)

There's a lot of things that don't work as advertised internally e.g. $entity_id being passed around but never used. Also using a URL like "cart/add" or "foobar/baz" will break the module, the URL must not have any slashes.

I'd suggest working on fixing that.

I am using your patch for the commerce add to cart feature.

http://drupal.org/node/823466

The article calls for the use of this patch. rules_link_callback.patch.

I was able to install the commerce add to cart patch however when I attempted to git the rules_link_callback.patch I did not do as well.

I could not find the following files in the rules module.

rules_link_admin.inc
rules_link.module

Here is the terminal window error message:

user@ubuntu11.04:~/website/sites/all/modules/rules$ git apply -v rules_link_callback.patch
rules_link_callback.patch:10: trailing whitespace.
'#options' => array('callback' => t('Callback'), 'javascript' => t('Javascript'), 'token' => t('Normal'), 'confirm' => t('Confirmation')),
rules_link_callback.patch:23: trailing whitespace.
function rules_link_trigger($rules_link) {
rules_link_callback.patch:28: trailing whitespace.
* Menu callback for callback links.
rules_link_callback.patch:29: trailing whitespace.
*/
rules_link_callback.patch:30: trailing whitespace.
function rules_link_trigger_callback($rules_link) {
Checking patch rules_link.admin.inc...
error: rules_link.admin.inc: No such file or directory
Checking patch rules_link.module...
error: rules_link.module: No such file or directory
user@ubuntu11.04:~/website/sites/all/modules/rules$

Any ideas what i did wrong?

Spineless

I admit, there are uses cases were a simple callback would be usefull, but the amount of such use cases is small. Adding such a callback is to risky, and therefore I'm not willing to add it to my module.

Maybe, making link-types pluggable would make sense?

Whoah!.. This is completely uncharacteristic in the Rules / Drupal ecosystems.

I've seen many opportunities for cooperation where one proposed solution needed to change from what the contributors and maintainers had originally intended. The issues went back and forth, a middle ground was discovered, and a productive direction was taken... and many users rejoiced. This is the type of thing which has made Rules great.

As a user, I really hope we'll figure out what can be done based on the points already made and, potentially, what can be merged from this fork. I'd be happy to help, but I hope this type of resistance will be seen for what it is, a mistake.
---

aidanlis: would fago's suggestion fit your needs? has Rules Link Event given you new insights about a callback link type?

fago: could you please explain more about what making link-types pluggable might allow and how it would look? and if possible, recommend a better solution than a CSRF-able plugin.

sepgil: same questions as ^ and a reminder to please "stand on the shoulders of giants" as we all say

spineless: error messages are a easier to read in txt files

all-contributors: thank you for your patience, commitment, and skill!

aidanlis, please take a moment to reflect on your tone. I'm trying to remain respectful, and I would appreciate it would read over the DCOC.

> Although I appreciate you putting some energy into this, all of your comments are superfluous.
If you're saying they're excessive, I'll admit they're a bit long. But unnecessary? Collaboration matters deeply here. I think you may be misjudging the situation. There are between 100k and 500k rules users and your project has created a lot confusion for them/us. And still, Rules users are still waiting for "a generalised solution for links and rules." I would like us to get back on track for that.

> There's no extra insight needed and we all know what a pluggable architecture would look like.
Here's what I want to find out: would it suit you? are you still interested in working on it?

> Suggesting that there exists a better solution than a CSRF-able plugin shows you don't understand a fundamental requirement (e.g. printed media).
I'm not a programmer, and I didn't suggest that. This issue clearly demonstrates the need to address the scenario described in #1553546: Encourage issue queue participants to clearly formulate the problem separately from proposed solutions. Our tools might let us down, but let's not let each other down.

Improved the wording.