ComposerValidator's hook_help() integration is imprecise and incomplete

I think this is a great start, but needs polishing.

I'm a bit confused about the approach in the merge request. It just changes the URL fragment to be very generic, and always links to that, to avoid linking incorrectly to the specific detected problem.

But the issue summary says:

We need to update hook_help(), and this link, to ensure that we're explaining the things that could actually cause this exception, and how to mitigate them. Such as:

• The Composer executable was not found.
• It was found, but it is not a supported version.
• The call to composer validate failed for some reason. We should link to Composer's documentation to explain why it might.

👆 That's saying we should detect which of the problems it is, and then link to the specific fragment?

Crediting @tedbow for discovering this in 🐛 Improve hook_help() to explain the actual Composer requirements Fixed .

That's saying we should detect which of the problems it is, and then link to the specific fragment?

Initially I also thought of this but this would make our validator more complex as we'll need to match specific error message to a specific fragment. So I thought it makes sense to have a generic composer related fragment and provide it every time there is a error related to composer.

My original thinking, to be clear, is in line with Kunal's. There is no point in increasing the complexity of the validator (and probably the exception) just to move to a more specific fragment of the online help. We can just link to "the Composer section" and expect people to read a bit.

To be clear re #8, #10 and #11. The exception will still be display to the user so they will still see a specific message about the Composer not being found, the version being wrong or `composer validate` failing for a specific reason.

So I agree with @kunal.sachdev and @phenaproxima that we should keep this simpler. We can alway come back and improve this if we get real user feedback they don't understand how to to solve the issue via the link to help.

We should update the summary to match

Merge conflicts...?

Thanks for updating the issue summary to match the implementation, @phenaproxima :)

I think y'all are right that this is a better trade-off of helpfulness vs complexity 👍

Found three remaining small problems, fixed those. RTBC now 😊

And now also with a title to match the current scope.

Nice to get this done! This is much better, helpful documentation.

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