VotingApiWidgetBase::getVoteSummary method doesn't work correctly.

Created on 13 January 2021, about 4 years ago
Updated 16 January 2023, about 2 years ago

Steps to reproduce

Create two fields with voting_api_widgets in one entity, name them as field_five_stars and field_five_stars_2.
Current logic in VotingApiWidgetBase::getVoteSummary next strrpos($key, $field_name) !== FALSE. So this check will always pass as long as fields will have same signature.

🐛 Bug report
Status

Needs review

Version

1.0

Component

Code

Created by

🇺🇦Ukraine dinazaur

Live updates comments and jobs are added and updated live.
Sign in to follow issues

Comments & Activities

Not all content is available!

It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.

  • Status changed to Needs work about 2 years ago
  • Status changed to Closed: won't fix about 2 months ago
  • 🇮🇹Italy apaderno Brescia, 🇮🇹
  • 🇺🇸United States tr Cascadia

    As of about 7 Sept 2023, GitLabCI and this module have been able to run tests on MRs. It was a LOT of work on my part, collaborating with core and Drupal infrastructure maintainers, over a period of more than two years, to make this happen. And the switch from DrupalCI to GitLabCI threw a huge monkey wrench into the process.

    You're welcome.

    I don't appreciate criticism from those who demonstrate no inclination to contribute to Drupal or this module. If you want to be part of the solution, stop being part of the problem.

    I will note that no-one thought it was worth 10 minutes of their time to put this into a patch back then when MRs were not supported.

    And I will note that in the past four years no-one thought it was worth 1 hour of their time to create a test case.

    As of today, this needs to go into 2.0.x. And we still need a test case to define and demonstrate the problem, as well as prove the solution. This module now has a few test cases that work, so this task is even easier than it was before.

    To anyone who cares about this issue:

    • Provide a test case that reproduces the problem by failing.
    • Provide a MR (including the test case) that passes, proving the fix corrects the problem.

    This is a community project. I am a volunteer maintainer - I do NOT work for you. If you care about this project and/or this issue, then contribute. I will not tolerate entitled users who demand that I (a volunteer) work on and fix problems that that they (paid employees) are experiencing. If you have a problem, I will provide guidance and enable the solution, but I feel no obligation to do your work for you.

  • 🇺🇦Ukraine dinazaur

    > I will not tolerate entitled users who demand that I (a volunteer) work on

    Who in the world demanded anything from you?

    If a question "Could you please explain why the patch vs issue fork is such a big issue?" is "demand" for you, I'm impressed. Creating a patch just because of your habits is not something I wanted to do, 4 years ago this module had 0 (zero!) tests. So the only reason you demanded is your whim. So to clarify, the only demander here is you.

    > fix problems that that they (paid employees) are experiencing.

    I reported the issue, and provided a fix, while I could create a local patch and didn't bother creating any issues here. I didn't make a "Feature request", I implemented a fix to the issue, reported it, described it, and provided reproduce steps.

    > If you care about this project and/or this issue, then contribute.

    Providing a fix is not a contribution? okay.

    > I feel no obligation to do your work for you.

    As I said, no one told you to do any work. In fact I'm willing to close this issue.

  • 🇺🇸United States loze Los Angeles

    This is addressed here 🐛 getResults is not returning the correct results Needs review and there is a working MR in that issue.

Production build 0.71.5 2024