- Issue created by @cmlara
- Status changed to Postponed
10 months ago 12:06am 1 June 2024 - Status changed to Active
7 months ago 11:48pm 21 September 2024 - π―π΅Japan ptmkenny
The dev branch of Encrypt now supports Drupal 11! As a result, I'm setting this to "Active."
- πΊπΈUnited States cmlara
We still will want to wait for a stable release of Encrypt prior to committing, however this can now proceed with working on the code against the Dev branch.
@cmlara Thanks for spinning up the new PR.
I have closed π Automated Drupal 11 compatibility fixes for tfa Needs review as duplicate
Pinged @rlhawk β , maintainer of encrypt module for rolling out a new release of encrypt.There's new stable release of encrypt module is out with Drupal 11 support https://www.drupal.org/project/encrypt/releases/8.x-3.2 β
- π¬π§United Kingdom darren.fisher
This looks like it is getting close. Thank you for all your hard work so far. Do you need any help with testing or any remaining tasks on this?
Would be massive for this to get a stable D11 release.
We're making a policy to move all our clients over to using this module and are looking at starting D11 site migrations in the next couple of months!
- πΊπΈUnited States cmlara
Do you need any help with testing or any remaining tasks on this?
Manual testing is always a positive, especially in any areas that may be less commonly used or that we do not have existing PHPUnit tests.
I try and give upgrades a once over, however I'm not testing every single possible combination of code execution. This will get better in time as our tests improve and as PHPStan evolves we will be able to depend upon it more.
This almost went in with the Login Block being broken (apparently we don't test that aspect) and only was caught by PHPStan (where it was hidden by other 'new' warnings unrelated to the D11 upgraded, a fault of mine for not having those cleaned up before the upgrade process started).
I believe this is close, Unless anything major occurs I currently plan to commit this in the next few days followed by a few days in the dev branch before tagging the official release.
- π¬π§United Kingdom darren.fisher
This is great news. Thank you so much for your work on this.
I've manually tested the MR as a patch:
https://git.drupalcode.org/project/tfa/-/merge_requests/91.patchI encountered no errors or issues for our use case using both the standard login route and the 'Tfa User login' block.
- πΊπΈUnited States cmlara
Committed to dev to allow a few more days of testing usage before tagging a release.
-
cmlara β
committed fe8287fd on 8.x-1.x
Issue #3451696 by cmlara: Add D11 Support
-
cmlara β
committed fe8287fd on 8.x-1.x
- Status changed to Downport
4 months ago 11:29pm 29 November 2024 -
jcnventura β
committed b2c5ee04 on 2.x
Issue #3451696 by cmlara, darren.fisher, jcnventura: Add D11 Support
-
jcnventura β
committed b2c5ee04 on 2.x
-
jcnventura β
committed 6a66011c on 2.x
Issue #3451696: Fix drupal/core requirement in composer.json
-
jcnventura β
committed 6a66011c on 2.x
- πΊπΈUnited States cmlara
@jcnventura Is there a reason you removed the core requirement in composer? This is required for composer to properly function in all use cases.
- π΅πΉPortugal jcnventura
Mostly because Drupal packager will introduce that automatically, and having it in two places can lead to those values becoming inconsistent with each other. Most modules I see rely on the packager to add that, and unless something breaks it shouldn't really be added to the composer.json file.
- πΊπΈUnited States cmlara
Most modules I see rely on the packager to add that
Most modules have never embraced the composer system fully. The facade was as added as a hack to allow Drupal sites to use composer without having to add a composer.json to each module Now that we have GitLab Ci comper.json is essentially mandatory and it is no longer a significant burden to maintain.
and unless something breaks it shouldn't really be added to the composer.json file
Documented https://www.drupal.org/docs/develop/using-composer/add-a-composerjson-fi... β that Composer itself needs it when used to its full capability. It is necessary when using GIT composer repositories (dev branches) and also useful when using manual checkouts for merging with a parent composer.json for easier development.
having it in two places can lead to those values becoming inconsistent with each other.
I've seen that from a few modules where the maintainers didn't double check their merge requests, though I haven't seen it cause a major problem in the ecosystem.
If we don't want to maintain in two places it would be better to set the module.info file to
>=10.1
instead and use the composer.json as the official support indicator. Though thank you this reminded me I needed to open π Prefer composer.json drupal/core requierment over module.info file for supproted versions field Active for the D.O. UI problems that have stopped me from doing that on other modules. Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.