Closed (fixed)
Project:
Drupal core
Version:
8.0.x-dev
Component:
other
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Created:
13 Feb 2013 at 12:50 UTC
Updated:
12 Apr 2015 at 22:04 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #1
benjy commentedPartial patch and a work in progress. Just gonna take advantage of the d.org test bot.
module_list
module_implements
drupal_alter
module_exists
module_hook
Comment #3
dawehnerIt seems to be helpful to not convert all at once, as this patch has the potential to have to be rerolled A LOT OF times.
#1895266: Convert views to use the ModuleHandler is one of those conversion issues. Catch explained there, that we maybe better wait on #1875086: Improve DX of drupal_container()->get()
Comment #4
benjy commented@dawehner, yes I agree. I had to re-roll it twice in the time it took me to get it uploaded :)
Also I asked on IRC about #1875086 and someone said it wouldn't make a difference.
What do you think is the best approach from here? Hold off for a little longer or create 1 patch per function and keep re-rolling? Ideally I'd create the patches and we could get them in ASAP so we didn't have to keep re-rolling.
On a side note though module_invoke_* functions have a new prototype hence find and replace isn't possible. It may be worth writing a script to handle this for us.
Comment #5
Crell commentedFirst, yes, wait on #1875086: Improve DX of drupal_container()->get() because that issue intends to remove drupal_container() entirely.
Second, I'd then spin up, probably, an issue per module or something like that. Keep the changes localized, so they're easy to parallelize, easy to reroll, and are less fragile. Those are then easily Novice-able tasks, which means we can feed them to Core Office Hours to help onboard people.
Comment #6
benjy commented@Crell, that sounds good to me. I'll set this ticket to postponed until #1875086: Improve DX of drupal_container()->get() is finished.
Comment #7
cosmicdreams commentedThat issue is resolved now so let's reopen this for the TC Core Sprint.
Comment #8
benjy commentedComment #9
benjy commentedI've created an issue per function after discussion on IRC. If we can get the patches reviewed nice and quick hopefully we won't have to re-roll so much.
Do we want to remove the function definitions in the same patch or should we have a follow up for that as well?
Comment #10
Crell commentedIf we're breaking it up by function, remove in the same patch. That way we can easily see if we missed a spot because we'll get a fatal function not found error. :-)
Comment #11
benjy commentedCrell, that makes sense to me however I spoke with catch about it on IRC last night and he suggested to leave the functions in core as to not make any API changes with these patches?
I don't mind which we do but let's make them all the same :)
Comment #12
tim.plunkettI would remove the functions when rolling the patches to help ensure you got everything perfect, but when rolling the final patch for commit, re-add it back in as a wrapper with @deprecated.
Comment #13
sam152 commentedAs per your suggestion Tim, I have left the deprecated function in the source of my module_exists patch. If the patch can be reviewed and committed, that would be sweet.
Comment #13.0
sam152 commentedAdded sub issues.
Comment #13.1
alexpottUpdated issue summary.
Comment #14
sunComment #15
ianthomas_ukComment #16
ParisLiakos commentedSo, usages are removed, besides a few of module_uninstal(), but those are only in test files
this patch should be enough
Comment #18
ParisLiakos commentedDrush needs to be updated for module_implements(), so lets keep this there for now
Lets see what else
Comment #20
ParisLiakos commentedActually there is already an issue https://github.com/drush-ops/drush/issues/452
Lets postpone it on that
Comment #21
ParisLiakos commentedComment #22
bfr commentedI think i fixed all Drush issues so this can be reopened.
Comment #25
ParisLiakos commentedi think we still need the drush version the testbot checks out updated as well..or this happened already, too?
Comment #26
bfr commentedGood question, I have no idea what version the testbot uses. However, I don't think there are any stable 7.x releases so I would guess it uses master. Maybe someone needs to go and do a manual pull.
Comment #27
ianthomas_ukI'll leave a tell for jthorston, he maintains the test bots.
Comment #28
ParisLiakos commentedIt uses 7.0.0-alpha1
Comment #29
bfr commentedWell, should we change the branch to master or wait for a release?
Comment #30
mile23Patch in #18 doesn't apply, which is also why the test failed in #24.
Comment #31
ianthomas_ukThat's because the functions have been removed in other issues.
Comment #32
mile23Nice. :-)