Add a CTools access plugin for checking if a translation is available

I like this patch, but would you explain the need to support both content and interface languages? Which use cases do you have in mind?

Quick code review:

+++ b/plugins/access/translation_exists.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+ * Plugins are described by creating a $plugin array which will be used
+ * by the system that includes this file.

The comment does not wrap at column 80.

I'm terribly sorry, I completely lost track of this one. Overall this looks good to me, although I didn't test it. I'll be glad to commit it if someone (icluding you :) confirms it still works. You'll earn the CTools integration component maintainership if this get in, though ;)

+++ b/plugins/access/translation_exists.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+     $plugins[$parent . ':' . $entity_type] = $plugin;

Wrong indentation.

+++ b/plugins/access/translation_exists.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+    'current' => t('Current content language'),
+    'default' => t('Default site language'),
...
+    'current' => t('Current site content language'),
+    'default' => t('Default site language'),
+    'und' => t('Language neutral'),

We have a couple of constants defined for these now. See ENTITY_TRANSLATION_LANGUAGE_DEFAULT, ENTITY_TRANSLATION_LANGUAGE_CURRENT, ENTITY_TRANSLATION_LANGUAGE_AUTHOR. We could add the latter for consistency with settings page.

+++ b/plugins/access/translation_exists.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+    'und' => t('Language neutral'),

'und' should be LANGUAGE_NONE

plach, looks like you scared him away when you dropped the "M" word ;)

I've applied the changes mentioned in comment #3, re-rolled that patch against the latest dev, and re-tested the patch.

Everything looks like its working correctly.

@spotzero:

plach, looks like you scared him away when you dropped the "M" word ;)

:)

Everything looks like its working correctly.

Looks good to me now, would you be confident about RTBCing this?

Definitely.

It worked correctly in my tests. Even if there were edge cases where this code didn't work as intend, as it add functionality without touching any existing processes or code, it can safely be merged in without needing to worry about breaking anything else.

And who is going to deal with any follow-up? ;)

If anyone reports any bugs with it, send the issues my way.

Anyone needing support should make their way to Montreal this weekend ;)

Sounds reasonable :)

Committed and pushed, thanks.