[TYPO3-core] RFC #15489: remove code warnings about XCLASS and naming annoyances

[Franz Holzinger]

Le 23/10/2010 08:41, Marcus Krause a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Am 22.10.2010 17:43, schrieb Steffen Kamper:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Stanislas Rolland schrieb:
>>> Le 2010-10-22 02:31, Ernesto Baschny [cron IT] a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I don't see that the EM is the right tool for that information, at least
>>>> not in the table "information about the extension". Else we would end up
>>>> having to include all CGL checking there. I see the "CI" server or the
>>>> extdeveval the most appropriate place to do it.
>>>>
>>> Or maybe a "Developer's report" in the Report module.
>
> I don't think so. Problems in context of extensions should be reported
> by EM.

No, this is very annoying if the EM reporst about missing XCLASS clauses 
and the users think they have found a severe bug. Do you really think 
that a missing XCLASS is a problem with an extension?

In some cases an XCLASS is not useful and not working at all.
The explanation has been given already here:


Le 23/08/2010 18:27, Ernesto Baschny [cron IT] a écrit :
 > Georg Ringer schrieb am 23.08.2010 09:39:
 >
 >> Am 19.08.2010 14:32, schrieb Franz Holzinger:
 >>> Problem:
 >>> The EM gives information containing code warnings and naming 
annoyances.
 >>> A normal user will get frightened by such warning messages. So they 
will
 >>> send emails to the extension authors. It is not the task of the EM to
 >>> show this information.
 >>
 >> First of all this information is shown only to administrators and not
 >> "normal users".
 >
 > A "normal admin" is not a developer. And I don't think this is useful
 > information for an admin also. Only the developer is interested in
 > seeing this (and other developers which might need to XCLASS something).
 >
 >> But besides the div2007 extension the warnings need to be overworked as
 >> extensions based on extbase get listed too.
 >
 > The problem is if you have an extension tree, you cannot XCLASS a base
 > class. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't work. This isn't only
 > extbase related.
 >
 > E.g.:
 >
 > 	class tx_myext_person
 > 	class tx_myext_boss extends tx_myext_person
 >
 > Now imagine a XCLASS in tx_myext_person (to keep current EM happy):
 >
 > In my code I do makeInstance(tx_myext_boss) and never
 > makeInstance(tx_myext_person) (maybe it is even an abstract base class).
 > So there is no way of XCLASSing tx_myext_person and so no reason to have
 > XCLASS information added to that file.
 >
 >
 > So I agree that the EM XCLASS warnings have to either go away or its
 > code optimized and moved over to some helper module of extdeveval. But I
 > would opt for only removing it from core as soon as we have a
 > replacement in extdeveval. Else we end up with no check at all, which
 > would be sad.
 >
 > So until then a -1 on the current patch, but a +1 on the general idea.
 > We need to get extdeveval team involved and I'll try to make the
 > necessary connections here. Olly Hader seems the "most active" developer
 > on the extdeveval front. Franz, do you mind trying to create a patch for
 > current extdeveval trunk to include that checks somewhere? Opening an
 > issue on forge for that (with patch) would sure speed up the process. [1]
 >
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Ernesto
 >
 > [1] http://forge.typo3.org/projects/extension-extdeveval/repository