[D6] Node User

So PAReview is more strict than Coder - even in strict mode - wow!

Anyway, I've taken care of almost all of the formatting issues that PAReview has indicated. There are a few remaining formatting issues, but I'd like to make a case for my way ;)

PAReview is complaining about things like this:

86 | ERROR | Expected "if (...) {\n"; found "if (...) {"
86 | ERROR | Closing brace must be on a line by itself
183 | ERROR | Inline control structures are not allowed

Mainly it doesn't like what I'll refer as the "Yea… I don't care" structure:

function module_some_hook(){  
  // If I don't care, bounce
  if(!$care) return;
  
  // long bit of code
}

Often I use this as an alternative to something like this:

function module_some_hook(){  
  // If we care, read through this big block of indented code
  // But if we don't care, you're just going to have to
  // look for the closing bracket, because there COULD
  // still something we care about
  if($care){
    // YAY, the whole function is indented one more level!
    if($some_check){
      // some stuff
    }
    if($another_thing){
      // more stuff..
    }
    // More stuff
  }
  // Nope, still don't care.
}

Granted the don't care approach can work with-in the confines of coding standards:

function module_some_hook(){  
  // If I don't care, bounce
  if(!$care){
    // Yes I care, Please oh please tell me what next!
    return;
    // Oh.
  }
  
  // long bit of code
}

But now this simple bounce is 3 times as many lines. In my mind this is a case of following the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. I tend to feel the non-compliant case here is a little more elegant and readable.

I have slightly compromised and at least wrapped brackets around the return. This at least prevents PAReview from telling me that all remaining lines in a switch/case are indented incorrectly, although it does then complain a little more about the brackets being on one line.

function module_some_hook(){  
  // If I don't care, bounce
  if(!$care) {return;}
  
  // long bit of code
}

So what's the verdict on all that? I'll change it if I must.

PAReview is also complaining about this line because of the control structure. But all I'm doing here is loading up an array.

while ($list[] = db_result($result));

Should I be more verbose and say:

while ($item = db_result($result)){
  $list[] = $item;
}

Again, that just seems overly verbose to me.

Thanks!

Thanks Raj,

I have added some extra config on the node-type edit form. This allows you to specify a default email to use when the node author is anonymous. I have tested this and it seems to solve the problem for me.

Thanks again for the feedback.
- Dylan

Thank you all. I have made changes to my code to abide by the coding standards. The code is currently passing PAReview with no issues.

This issue has been marked RTBC, but as far as I can tell I haven't been granted the project creation permission. What needs to happen next?

Thanks.

Bump.

This issue has been marked RTBC, but as far as I can tell I haven't been granted the project creation permission. What needs to happen next?

Thanks.

Bump again. I'm setting the status back to "needs review" hoping to grab the correct set of eyes.

This issue was previously marked RTBC, but I never received the project creation permission. Would someone in the know please advise me of any additional steps I should be taking.

Thanks.

Thank you kscheirer. It was marked RTBC a month ago. Do you know how long it usually takes for final approval?

Thank you all.