Closed (fixed)
Project:
Drupal.org security advisory coverage applications
Component:
module
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Created:
18 Nov 2011 at 13:52 UTC
Updated:
2 May 2019 at 20:59 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #0.0
Robertas commentedbeautifying description
Comment #1
chakrapani commentedIt appears you are working in the "master" branch in git. You should really be working in a version specific branch. The most direct documentation on this is Moving from a master branch to a version branch. For additional resources please see the documentation about release naming conventions and creating a branch in git.
Review of the master branch:
This automated report was generated with PAReview.sh, your friendly project application review script. Go and review some other project applications, so we can get back to yours sooner.
Comment #2
Robertas commentedFixed all the above mentioned problems in a branch 6.x-1.x
Please review.
Comment #3
doitDave commentedAutomated review (Please keep in mind that this is primarily a high level check that does not replace but, after all, eases the review process. There is no guarantee that no other issues could show up in a more in-depth manual follow-up review.)
Review of the 6.x-1.x branch:
This automated report was generated with PAReview.sh, your friendly project application review script. Go and review some other project applications, so we can get back to yours sooner.
Addition: Have you already dived into http://drupal.org/coding-standards yet? I.e. more than a glance? There's really much you can learn even if you thought you were familiar with Drupal coding and even if you are doing it for already a good while. I really recommend it, not just in order to follow some rules. This is just what I noticed on myself, of course.
Comment #4
Robertas commentedFixed all the problems (comment #3) in a branch 6.x-1.x
Please review.
Comment #5
Robertas commentedFixed all the problems (comment #3) in a branch 6.x-1.x
Please review.
Comment #6
natemow commentedAutomated review:
Manual review:
Comment #7
Robertas commentedFixed all the problems (comment #6) in a branch 6.x-1.x
Also added validation of vTiger url in config form.
Please review.
Comment #7.0
Robertas commentedmotivation text edit
Comment #7.1
Robertas commentedAdded new required module in requirements.
Comment #8
klausiReview of the 6.x-1.x branch:
This automated report was generated with PAReview.sh, your friendly project application review script. Go and review some other project applications, so we can get back to yours sooner.
manual review:
Comment #9
Robertas commentedThanks, klausi, for taking your time to review the code!
I checked with dsm() - $form_state['values'] are not available in this place, only $form_state['post'].
Comment #10
steve.colson commentedEven if you are keeping the ! placeholder, it should probably still be sanitized...
Review of the 6.x-1.x branch:
This automated report was generated with PAReview.sh, your friendly project application review script. You can also use the online version to check your project. Go and review some other project applications, so we can get back to yours sooner.
Source: http://ventral.org/pareview - PAReview.sh online service
Comment #11
Robertas commentedThanks, stephen.colson.
Removed space on line 290.
And I do not agree with automatic warnings on lines 292 and 456.
Quoting here my code from line 292:
I am using ! placeholder to pass on link made with l() function - this is normal way of doing things in drupal 6 - http://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/includes--common.inc/function/t/6 . Title and url of link is just plane text - no user input or variables there, so there is no point in sanitizing this title text string nor url string. In the same way - I see no point in sanitizing carfted url, made with the l() function. Please advice.
Comment #12
steve.colson commentedI have taken a look at the code in both places and tend to agree with you--there isn't any security risk in the way it is done and would be comfortable saying that coding standards wise, things look good.
Comment #13
steve.colson commentedI've given this a manual review and I haven't seen any issues standing out. Moving this to RTBC.
Comment #14
Robertas commentedThanks, stephen.colson. I was already loosing hope...
Comment #15
klausiReview of the 6.x-1.x branch:
This automated report was generated with PAReview.sh, your friendly project application review script. You can also use the online version to check your project. Get a review bonus and we will come back to your application sooner.
manual review:
Comment #16
Robertas commentedThanks, klausi!
Please review. Thanks!
Comment #17
Robertas commentedMoving this back to RTBC.
Comment #18
klausidon't RTBC your own issues ;-)
Comment #18.0
klausiFixed repo command.
Comment #18.1
Robertas commentedFrom requirements removed dependency from "select or other" module.
Comment #19
Robertas commentedAdded issue tag: PAReview: review bonus
Reviews are in issue summary section.
Comment #20
klausiPlease don't post the output of automated review tools like pareview.sh inline in a comment, as it just clutters the issue. Better add it as .txt attachment instead.
manual review:
Otherwise this looks nearly ready to me. Removing review bonus tag, you can add it again if you have done another 3 reviews of other projects.
Comment #21
Robertas commentedThanks, klausi, for your good review points:
And I am still working on other points.
Comment #22
Robertas commentedFixed the rest two review points made by klausi:
- moved code into webform2vtiger.admin.inc;
- fixed that too;
Please review the module now.
Comment #23
patrickd commentedPlease leave the tag for statistical purposes.
Comment #23.0
patrickd commentedAdded new section - "Reviews of other projects"
Comment #24
traviscarden commentedYou're getting there, Robertas! :)
git push origin :master. (Note the colon.)Constants should be documented using the docblock format, just like functions. Just change the comments to the
/***/style.webform2vtiger_help(), webform2vtiger.module:webform2vtiger_form_alter(), webform2vtiger.install:*, etc.The short description and the expanded description in a docblock should have a blank line between them. See Documenting hook_menu() callbacks for an example. I think I saw this in a few other places.
Strings with line breaks and irregular whitespace in them are hard to override. You should either put them all on one line or run each line through
t()separately.@param) and return values (@return) when they have them. A read through Doxygen and comment formatting conventions would be helpful in general.should be
There should never be unbalanced indentation. Any structure that you indent you must eventually outdent to the same depth. And you should break the lines around opening and closing parentheses. There are a number of other places this needs to be fixed.
Control structure conditions should not be wrapped into multiple lines.
Comment #25
klausi@travis: I could not find your #9 in the coding standards, of course it is recommended for long condition lines to split them up for better readability.
Comment #26
traviscarden commented@klausi: It's under Line length and wrapping. "Conditions should not be wrapped into multiple lines." Here's an example of how this standard might be observed with the code above while maintaining readability:
Instead of this:
this:
Comment #27
Robertas commentedThanks, TravisCarden! Fixed all points except of master branch.
1. I am using SmartGit on Windows. When trying to delete remote 'master' branch I receive this error:
Any ideas on how to delete Master branch?
2. Changed constant comment to docblock format.
3. Fixed docblock comments for hooks.
4. Fixed .install file docblock.
5. Fixed menu callbacks docblocks.
6. Joined strings in one line in webform2vtiger.admin.inc
7. Added documentation to function parameters and return values.
8. Fixed unbalanced intendations in several places.
9. Fixed problem with control structures wrapping multiple lines.
Please review.
Comment #28
klausiSorry for the delay. Make sure to review more project applications and get a new review bonus to get this done faster.
Review of the 6.x-1.x branch:
This automated report was generated with PAReview.sh, your friendly project application review script. You can also use the online version to check your project. You have to get a review bonus to get a review from me.
But otherwise this looks RTBC to me.
Comment #29
klausiNo objections for more than a week, so ...
Thanks for your contribution, Robertas! Welcome to the community of project contributors on drupal.org.
I've granted you the git vetted user role which will let you promote this to a full project and also create new projects as either sandbox or "full" projects depending on which you feel is best.
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.
As you continue to work on your module, keep in mind: Commit messages - providing history and credit and Release naming conventions.
Thanks to the dedicated reviewer(s) as well.
Comment #30.0
(not verified) commentedadded another review link
Comment #31
avpadernoI am giving credits to the users who participated in this issue.