Unsupported releases are missing status text

Any news on this one?

@sun: Daniel, ping?

Hrm. Well that means there is not even a development release, so it would be wrong to display "In development", wouldn't it?

I confirm what philbar noticed. All such modules seem to simply have versions available, but they are marked as 'unsupported'.

(...edited title to reflect this finding.)

Still not sure. If I just port something, then I'd create a new major branch and dev snapshot release. Additionally marking it as unsupported means that the code has known issues, may not even work at all, and people should not use it -- at least that's the current meaning, since Update Status will also bail out + spit some site security errors at you.

Hence, the question whether to display unsupported releases or not is mainly a question of user audience. If it's developers, then we can include unsupported. If it's "end-users", then they probably shouldn't consider unsupporte.

I agree with you Daniel that setting a module release to "unsupported" should be used as you state it should, but still you know how people misuse this setting (developers most of the times set versions as such to avoid 'when-will-it-be-ready' questions).

As for the developers/beta-testers vs. end-users case, you know how most end-users wait till there's a stable version available. The first use Update Status to see when there's something available for testing (in order to help with development) while the second simply wait for the status to get 'green' in order to upgrade their sites. So, as long as 'In development' and 'Unsupported' remain a color other than green, we should be ok with end-users ;)

ok, so where's the patch? :)

...working on #620714: Denote modules which are in D7 Core right now, lets see if I can do something about this once I'm finished with that one.

Shall we try 3) "In development" first, as this issue title suggests?

We definitely need an inline code comment then, explaining the situation. More or less a shortened up-to-the-point summary and combination of comments #7 and #8.

+++ upgrade_status.admin.inc	1 Sep 2010 23:53:19 -0000
@@ -410,6 +410,8 @@ function theme_upgrade_status_report($da
       case UPGRADE_STATUS_DEVELOPMENT:
+      // Include modules that have a D7 release but the maintainer has marked it "unsupported" because it's still being developed
+	  case UPDATE_STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED:
         $row .= '<span class="not-current">'. t('In development') .'</span>';

1) Strange indentation.

2) We never use tabs in Drupal. Only two spaces (for one indentation level).

3) All code comments should wrap at 80 chars. And they should form proper sentences, i.e., end in a period.

4) The comment will be outdated when we are checking the upgrade status against D8.

5) "Include modules that have a D7 release but the maintainer has marked it unsupported" can be shortened to "Unsupported releases".

6) The comment does not explain any of the essential details of #7 and #8, i.e., it's not clear why we are treating unsupported stuff as supported. That's what we are actually doing here.

Powered by Dreditor.

Thanks. The point of code reviews and coding standards is to manage expectations and prevent unnecessary additional workload.

Committed.

A new development snapshot will be available within the next 12 hours. This improvement will be available in the next official release.