[Discuss] Extension Skeleton Development Tool

[DavidIQ]

PS is that ext.php file I made going to be merged?

We just took ownership so give it some time.

[RMcGirr83]

No, I'm impatient.

[david63]

Do you have debug enabled?

Sure do - but there were no errors

[3Di]

It means that there was a topic a few days ago where VSE said that extensions should not be downloaded directly from a git repro but from a release!

Poke

For reference: viewtopic.php?p=14387501#p14387501

[3Di]

Do you have debug enabled?

Sure do - but there were no errors

Strange, anyway before to file that issue I deeply checked the code (3.1.x) and found what I wrote there. Instead in 3.2.x that class does exists, sort of discrepance?!?

[HiFiKabin]

I thought it was just me, but I am not getting anything other than errors.

Fill in the fields, hit submit and ...

screenshot_1383.jpg

[3Di]

I thought it was just me, but I am not getting anything other than errors.

Fill in the fields, hit submit and ...

screenshot_1383.jpg

https://github.com/phpbb-extensions/php ... /issues/10

[HiFiKabin]

^^ many thanks

[RMcGirr83]

Do you have debug enabled?

Sure do - but there were no errors

Strange, anyway before to file that issue I deeply checked the code (3.1.x) and found what I wrote there. Instead in 3.2.x that class does exists, sort of discrepance?!?

Seems we have an issue with this development tool. It is partly coded for 3.1.x and partly coded for 3.2.x. David63 didn't have any errors (other than the twig thingy) because he was installing on 3.2, 3Di had errors because he was installing on 3.1 and, as had been stated, 3.1 doesn't have symfony finder class whereas 3.2 does.

I guess no one actually tests things these days prior to implementing them with PRs. A bit sloppy if you ask me.

[RMcGirr83]

One last note on this I don't think this is a very good idea.

Code: Select all

			'require-dev' => array(
				'phpbb/epv' => 'dev-master',

if an extension writer is using dependencies, then when compiled by composer it will include extraneous stuff within the extension writers vendor folder...like symphony.

Issue opened I suppose.

[Paul]

it should include EPV, it is best practise to use travis and test with EPV to prevent insta-deny.

[MattF]

I was led to believe, by Paul and/or VSE, that if there are releases they should be packaged and made available. That way users don't have to download the zip, unzip, rename the directory (in this case phpbb-ext-skeleton-3.1.x), upload to the forum, etc.

You do not have to take that as gospel.

However, it's a best practice to tag your "releases" and even nicer to make releases on Github where users can download a pre-packaged build, instead of the raw source code, where they have to build the packaging structure themselves.

Even more so if you actually have dependencies from composer packages.

As for EPV, I no longer consider it correct to make it a dependency of your extension. Because, frankly, your extension does not need it. Instead of adding EPV to your composer, and running composer install in your travis file, I instead call this new travis script, See these changes, for example. This makes EPV part of phpBB dynamically during the testing process.

[MattF]

Anyway, yes there should be releases and phpBB 3.2 compatibility soon for the Extension skeleton. It's still in "dev" which is why there were no releases yet.

[RMcGirr83]

@Paul I disagree. EPV is already run when submitting to the CDB plus I have run into issues with false positives using EPV and travis in the past (can't find it now naturally).

Don't see why it can't be a user choice just as Questions are asked concerning PHP listeners and even for Travis itself.

Code: Select all

    'SKELETON_QUESTION_COMPONENT_TRAVIS'            => 'Should we add a sample for test execution on Travis CI',
    'SKELETON_QUESTION_COMPONENT_TRAVIS_UI'            => 'Test execution on Travis CI',
    'SKELETON_QUESTION_COMPONENT_TRAVIS_EXPLAIN'    => 'default: y; [y/n]',

Only things that should be "required" would be the license and the type. If an extension writer wants to include EPV when testing on travis that would require a check on the yes box. Are you going to allow extension writers, if using dependencies, to include the EPV stuff within their extension when submitted to the CDB after they compiled it using composer? I highly doubt it.

To sum it shouldn't be "required" IMHO.

[3Di]

EPV can be also just locally run, btw.
Ie.: on windows I can.

The most interesting stuff to me - atm - is to have it running at least for 3.1.x.
The issue I filed (#10) explains it all.
There is no way to test and provide feedback or PRs if it doesn't works.