Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/18447 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: system.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: menesis Status: patch Looking at the new patch, I was surprised to see how small it is... There's much more to dependency system than that. I don't like the approach at all. You automatically enable the required modules and only inform the user afterwards. As I'm used in Linux packaging tools, I expect to be asked if I really want to enable the required module and the module itself. Those modules might not be installed, in this case have to tell the user to download the required modules and properly install them - create tables, enable, configure, and then try enabling this module again. Your patch does not deal with that and might make the system unusable, when a broken module is automatically enabled. A real package/dependency system should have more different relationships - depends on, recommends, suggests, conflicts... After you select which modules to enable, you get a listing of additional dependant modules with checkboxes defaulting to most likely action, and possibly disabled. Then you confirm that and selected modules are enabled. menesis Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 02:55 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend.patch (3.22 KB) As discussed on the developer list. This was surprisingly easy. There is still an issue: t('The configuration options have been saved.') is displayed more than once if there is a dependency forced module switch on. I have tried something (you'll see) for some reason it does not work. Number of page reloads can be decreased if Drupal could be reinitialized after system_listing_save instead of redirecting but I doubt this would be feasible. Although I marked this is feature request, this is more a usability issue (for the forum-comment dependency) and as a side effect it is a useful feature, too (for any other module "bundles"). I want criticism! I'd like to get torn apart by wild animals. Heavy! Eaten by some squirrels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 03:22 : clydefrog Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but shouldn't forum_depends return an array? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 03:26 : javanaut I think allowing for both required dependencies as well as optional ones would make it practical for a package management tool to be created. I like it, though, and I think being able to programatically enforce (or at least notify users about) dependencies would assist users who refuse to RTFM.
From my drupal-devel comment, here's how I would suggest formatting the hook_depends:
<?php function filestore2_depends() { return array('required'=>array('fscache'), 'optional'=>array('taxonomy','comments')); } ?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 03:29 : chx If you take a look at module_invoke_all, you will see that a string is fine, 'cos if you return a string it does $result[] However, an associative array is not good with module_invoke_all 'cos for returned arrays there is an array_merge where "If the input arrays have the same string keys, then the later value for that key will overwrite the previous one." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 03:33 : javanaut Ok, how about it taking a parameter? <?php function filestore2_depends($dep_type='required') { $deps = array('required'=>array('fscache'), 'optional'=>array('taxonomy','comments')); return $deps[$dep_type]; } ?> Then, for required dependencies, pass a 'required' argument, and optional ones could take an 'optional' argument. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 04:00 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend_0.patch (3.6 KB) I would leave associative arrays for the future. As we do not have a package tool, there is little use of 'optional' -- I'd like to get this into 4.6 After testing the patch, I have changed something, which I should not have done, so another version is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 04:11 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend_1.patch (4.37 KB) This one should really work... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 04:12 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend_2.patch (3.15 KB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 06:13 : gordon +1 Not only is this something that I have wanted for filestore2 for quite a while, but has not been on my priority list. But this would be extremely useful for the ecommerce modules, as there seems to be alot of interdependancy. Also on a side note, it would also be good for a module to be able to reject an enabling. So if the module is going to stop drupal from running if it does have its tables created, it will inform the user and not be turned on. This could actually be done allowing the dependancy hook to do some checking and so stop the module from being able to be enabled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 10:19 : mathias This would make installing the ecommerce package easier given that modules are no longer listed alphabetically from within their subdirectories. The modules are scattered all over the page unless I adopt some sort of ec_ prefix to module naming. I wonder how Adrian's installer handles dependencies? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 12:42 : adrian My installer doesn't currently handle dependencies, and I am not convinced this should go into 4.6. There's more to dependency checking than just 'depends' including fun things like circular dependencies and version checking. Once we have versioning for drupal modules / schemas .. we can look at this again. Vlado apparently has dependency checking code already built, that he is going to donate to the installer effort. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 12:57 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend_3.patch (3.26 KB) Well, I know there could be problems. However, circular dependecy is handled with my code. You have module A, this depends on B, this depends on C which depends on A. You tick A, press Save. Next listing will tick B instead of you, press Save. Next listing will tick C instead of you, press Save. Next listing will be happy, 'cos A is on. Adrian convinced me that taking a parameter is a good thing, so it's in. And he asked for calling the hook _info. So be it. And he pointed out that I do not understand drupal_set_message which was true. So now the status message is now displayed only once. Shall I protect the new error message from such a duplication? And please, get this simple system into 4.6 'cos (as already stated) the forum-comment dependency has threads on drupal.org already so it could be called a bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 13:08 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend_4.patch (3.27 KB) Minor things: default hook_info key shall be called 'depends' not 'required' (Adrian). Message should be 'enabled' for consistency reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 8, 2005 - 21:56 : Dries The status message needs work (incorrect use of em, confusing wording). Lastly, the way messages are handled and fiddled with is peculiar at best: the logic is spread out over different functions and complicated because of that. I'm not happy with the code as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 12, 2005 - 12:37 : Dries Setting this 'active'. Waiting for new patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 22:21 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend_5.patch (3.3 KB) Here is new version. Hope you like it more than the previous one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 22:29 : chx One s too much... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 22:31 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/depend_6.patch (3.3 KB) grrrr... it submitted without attaching... is there some way to make preview required for me...? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 14, 2005 - 12:28 : stefan nagtegaal chx: I do like the approach you took, but I think we should return more information to the administrator. You did: <?php drupal_set_message(t('%module is enabled because other modules depend on it.', array ('%module' =>'<em>'. $file->name .'</em>')), 'error'); ?> First I don't think you need to have the $type = 'error' as the second argument.. Imo it is not an error, just a notification. Or am I wrong? And secondly, can't we do something like: <?php drupal_set_message(t("Because '%module' depends on functionality offered by '%modules', these modules are also enabled to omit possible problems.', array ('%module' => "<em>$file->name</em>", '%modules' => "<em>$required_modules</em>"))); ?> I would really appreciate feedback of any of you... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 26, 2005 - 01:17 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/dependency1.patch (2.34 KB) Whole new dependency system! This has nothing to do the with previous patches. Those were a bit hackish. hook_install('depends') may return a string or an array of strings. The modules whose name is returned, will be switched on. These new modules' dependencies are also dealt with. And so on. I have thought of using format_plural, but the arguments make that impossible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 26, 2005 - 03:46 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/dependency1_0.patch (2.34 KB) A few 's are gone according to Steven's advice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 26, 2005 - 05:24 : mathias Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/dependency.patch (2.62 KB) +1, and a slice of blueberry pie. I tested this patch against the ecommerce package and it worked as expected. My attached patch simply tweaks a couple minor code details and made the the dependency message a little easier to understand. Please add this to 4.6. This could be viewed as a major usability benefit for module developers and end users ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 26, 2005 - 16:55 : stefan nagtegaal Can't we refrase this: <?php t("The following module has been enabled since it's dependent on %module in order function properly: %dependents.", array ('%module' => '<em>'. $module .'</em>', '%dependents' => '<em>'. implode(', ', $enabled) .'</em>') ?> I'm not sure why, but I don't think this is userfriendly enough.. Anisa, (I'm not sur eshe is on this list) do you have a better idea? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 26, 2005 - 22:12 : adrian Two things .. a) Enabling a module is not installing a module, so the naming of the _install hook (wether it is already being used in my install api or not) is wrong. b) don't add a hook when we already have one. hook_info used to be used for the module description, but currently is only being used for auth. I am rolling a patch which uses hook_info() (as I am intending to do in my install patches). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 27, 2005 - 00:33 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/dependency_0.patch (2.61 KB) OK I changed back to hook_info. However, hook_info PHPdoc needs a change. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 28, 2005 - 02:01 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/dependency_1.patch (2.69 KB) I contacted Anisa who had a better wording idea. Thanks! To quote her: "Keep in mind that to the user, this is a surprise. They may not have read the documentation properly, and not anything about X. 'for you' suggests that this is a service, not a scary-computer-doing-things-on-its-own behavior. I added the line about permissions and settings to remind the user that just because X module has been enabled for them, not everything will be exactly perfect." and she had had advice about changing "permissions" (and maybe settings) to a link, but that's not for this patch... it is listed in the usability group's todo for every module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 28, 2005 - 04:42 : moshe weitzman not just permissions - some database table(s) may need manual creation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 3, 2005 - 21:48 : stefan nagtegaal Dries, what is wrong with this patch? I think it is a great (and not even a very big code change) improvement to the current drupal.. It's pretty straight-forward, and makes sense in a lot of ways.. If the patch needs more work, just let it know and i'll see what I can do.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 3, 2005 - 23:25 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/dependency_2.patch (2.9 KB) reword again to include moshe's suggestion. theme placeholder usage. proper cvs diff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 01:27 : chx Any chance for 4.6?