Closed (fixed)
Project:
Mollom
Version:
6.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Reporter:
Created:
17 Nov 2009 at 15:10 UTC
Updated:
20 Dec 2009 at 18:50 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent file
In preparation for some other stuff.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #15 | mollom-DRUPAL-6--1.cleanup-tests.patch | 11.87 KB | sun |
| #12 | mollom-DRUPAL-6--1.mail-alter.patch | 853 bytes | sun |
| #8 | mollom-DRUPAL-6--1.cleanup.8.patch | 57.83 KB | sun |
| #7 | mollom-DRUPAL-6--1.cleanup.7.patch | 57.96 KB | sun |
| #3 | mollom-DRUPAL-6--1.cleanup.2.patch | 57.98 KB | sun |
Comments
Comment #1
dave reidNot sure we have a standard that says these need to be a certain way. The only thing I can find is http://drupal.org/node/1354#files which for .install files should be "Install, update and uninstall functions for the XXX module." which is what's currently used.
Lost indentation for form element property.
Are we using the Drupal 7 style "Implements hook_x()." in Drupal 6 now?
Not sure we put blank lines between @params and @returns. Also, this function is going to be used on the statistics page and possibly for a block.
I'm on crack. Are you, too?
Comment #2
sunSorry for the indentation. Revamped that snippet, so it won't happen again.
re 1: There is no clear standard, but at least the module name should be a proper name.
re 3: http://drupal.org/node/1354 is always the current standard. Coding standards are not per-core-version.
re 4: Is contained in the coding standards. In short: yes, we do. However, what means ? So this is dead code currently and exists for a upcoming feature only?
Comment #3
sunmeh, forgot to attach ;)
Comment #4
dries commentedOddly enough, the patch doesn't apply for me.
Comment #5
dave reidProbably because I just changed hook_cron() to hook_flush_caches(). Sorry. :/
Comment #6
dave reidRe re 1: We need to file an issue to fix core @file documentation then, since basically none of the Drupal 7 or 6 @file directives use the proper module case. And we should document this somewhere.
Re re 4: Correct, it is not currently utilized.
Comment #7
sunRe-rolled.
Comment #8
sunRemoved the @todo for mollom_get_statistics().
Comment #9
dries commentedmollom_get_statistics() needs to move to a re-usable Mollom.class.php -- but obviously not part of this patch.
Comment #10
dries commentedReviewed the code and it looks good. I ran the tests locally, and they all pass. So committed to CVS HEAD. Thanks sun.
Comment #11
dave reidThanks sun!
Comment #12
sunTiny follow-up.
Comment #13
dave reidCommitted to CVS. Thanks!
Comment #14
sunOn to mollom.test...
What does this todo mean?
Comment #15
sunI still need to know what aforementioned @todo means.
Comment #16
dave reidVery nice change, thanks.
This means DWTC->assertMail() wasn't available yet, but now it is. I'm working on adding tests for it with fixing the e-mail reporting issues.
Not sure why this needs to be changed. Some DNS (OpenDNS) do weird stuff if you don't enter a proper domain name. Using a fake, valid domain name ensures same result among all tests. Maybe we could use mollom.example.com so we don't hit Mollom servers.
This review is powered by Dreditor.
Comment #17
sunhm, the other tests are equally using http://fake-host - only this one uses that?
Comment #18
dave reidHah, missed that in my previous cleanup. That was the only test that caused E_NOTICE errors to pop up in tests because I use OpenDNS. Trying them all tests with proper fake hosts now.
Comment #19
dave reidOk, ignore what I said. I think I changed that around the time we had some instability with testing and the Mollom servers in developer mode. Everything works fine just using 'fake-host'.
I'm not sure verifying the keys should be a validation-stopper. For instance, if the Mollom servers are down, users should still be able to save their keys. Not a commit-stopper though, but keep it in mind. I also changed all the @todo's for testing mail to ' @todo Test mail sending with assertMail() now that it is available.'
This review is powered by Dreditor.
Comment #20
dries commentedNice clean-up. Some feedback:
The code comment is a bit cryptic: 'to pass further modules'?
This is possible in Drupal 7. Might be good to mention that explicitly.
See above.
I'm on crack. Are you, too?
Comment #21
dries commentedWe believe this one was committed by David. Marking 'fixed'.