So that failures may be caught and dealt with appropriately.

Comments

David_Rothstein’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review

Makes some sense - however, I would think the return value should be exactly consistent with module_load_include()... In other words, maybe it should just do return module_load_include('install', $module) instead?

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, module.inc_.patch, failed testing.

oadaeh’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new554 bytes

That makes sense.

My initial take on this had more code in there, but then I rethought it and pared it down, just not enough.

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, module.inc_.patch, failed testing.

oadaeh’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new581 bytes

Patch created from the correct directory.

moshe weitzman’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

missing doxygen for @return

oadaeh’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new1016 bytes

Added that, the missing @param, and the missing @return for the function it calls (I can remove that last one if it's stepping over the line).

moshe weitzman’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

looks good. wait for green before commit.

David_Rothstein’s picture

StatusFileSize
new1.18 KB

Er, in the latest version of the patch you left out the most important part - the actual code change :)

I added that back in, plus clarified the @return docs a tiny bit to indicate that the name of the file is what's returned. I also added a blank line before the @return, to comply with coding standards.

I think it's probably still RTBC.

sun’s picture

#9: modules-inc-828648-9.patch queued for re-testing.

sun’s picture

Version: 7.x-dev » 8.x-dev

Although badly needed, this is D8 material according to the rules (I had to learn today). It may be backported at a later point in time (though that's unlikely).

David_Rothstein’s picture

Version: 8.x-dev » 7.x-dev

I think that making a function which previously returned nothing now return something (and be consistent with other similar functions) is, although technically an API "change", not one that could ever break anyone's code under any realistic scenario.

Moving back to D7 for consideration.

tom_o_t’s picture

module.inc_.patch queued for re-testing.

webchick’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Agreed, this seems to just be fixing an oversight in the existing API.

Committed to HEAD.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.