[2.1.x] Block Visibility Conditions

Thank you for applying!

Please read Review process for security advisory coverage: What to expect → for more details and Security advisory coverage application checklist → to understand what reviewers look for. Tips for ensuring a smooth review → gives some hints for a smoother review.

The important notes are the following.

• If you have not done it yet, you should run phpcs --standard=Drupal,>DrupalPractice on the project, which alone fixes most of what reviewers would report.
• For the time this application is open, only your commits are allowed.
• The purpose of this application is giving you a new drupal.org role that allows you to opt projects into security advisory coverage, either projects you already created, or projects you will create. The project status will not be changed by this application; no other user will be able to opt projects into security advisory policy.
• We only accept an application per user. If you change your mind about the project to use for this application, or it is necessary to use a different project for the application, please update the issue summary with the link to the correct project and the issue title with the branch to review and the project name.

To the reviewers

Please read How to review security advisory coverage applications → , Application workflow → , What to cover in an application review → , and Tools to use for reviews → .

The important notes are the following.

• It is preferable to wait for a Code Review Administrator before commenting on newly created applications, even to leave a comment similar to the following one. Code Review Administrators will do some preliminary checks that are necessary before any change on the project files is suggested.
• It is also preferable to wait before using a CLI tool → to report what needs to be changed, especially because the comment left from Code Review Administrators suggests to use PHP_CodeSniffer. Before that, manual reviews should be done.
• Reviewers should not copy-paste the output of a CLI tool. They should use a CLI tool only once per application. When they do that, they should later verify the code has been correctly changed; this means, for example, that adding a documentation comment that is not correct just to avoid to get a warning/error is not a correct change that should be reported in a further comment.
• It may be best to have the applicant fix things before further review.

For new reviewers, I would also suggest to first read In which way the issue queue for coverage applications is different from other project queues → .

Usually, after reviewing a project, we allow the developer to opt projects into security advisory coverage. This project is too small for us and it doesn't contain enough PHP code to really assess your skills as developer.

Have you created any other project on drupal.org (module, theme, distribution) we could instead review? The project needs to have most of the commits (preferable all the commits) done by you.

Thank you for your reaction. Unfortunately, this is currently the only contributed module.
I do have credit on almost 50 issues: https://www.drupal.org/u/matthiasm11 →
Would it help if another verified developer would vouch for me? (we are developer colleagues for over 9 years)

If it helps anything, I can vouch for matthiasm11's skills as a developer, having been colleagues for over 9 years. I don't have any recent open source projects available to vouch for my own skills though, but the most representative one is https://www.drupal.org/project/lissa_kickstart → .

These applications are based on code review; issue credits or vouches are not part of these applications.
Considering those would not be fair with all the people who had their applications approved.

Ok, thank you for your time. I'm closing this ticket.
It's a bummer tiny modules can't get security advisory unless I write a big module first.

tiny modules can't get security advisory

The Block Visibility Conditions module is already covered by the security advisory policy. If your aim was to achieve that, that has been already achieved.

That was the aim indeed, thanks to @klaasvw it is covered now.