- Issue created by @kevinquillen
- Status changed to Closed: duplicate
2 months ago 3:03pm 12 September 2024 - 🇺🇸United States phenaproxima Massachusetts
This is a duplicate of 📌 Dependencies should be 'unpacked' to the root composer.json and merged/resolved Needs review .
- Status changed to Active
2 months ago 3:04pm 12 September 2024 - 🇯🇴Jordan Rajab Natshah Jordan
I see the need for this feature when we unpack. for sure.
At this point use the method of an independent package to supply needed patches only, but without requiring them
to let any rootcomposer.json
use the patch storage. ( by the way, we borrowed that idea from distributions_recipes )In some cases, a package for a recipe may use a rarely-used module - or for selected cases, like a commerce recipe for example we supply the patch in the recipe/module's
composer.json
file. - 🇨🇷Costa Rica robert-arias
Unpack patches was removed from 📌 Dependencies should be 'unpacked' to the root composer.json and merged/resolved Needs review to handle it on this ticket.
This is the commit with the removed patch unpacked functionality.
- 🇮🇹Italy kopeboy Milan
Was it already working?
Anyway, I was wondering if this is a good idea in general..
If everything supplied by recipes should be optional, how do we (let a site builder) remove/override a patch once "unpacked"?
Wouldn't this need to be optional and come with a warning to the user applying the recipe.. or even on the site UI, eg. at/admin/reports/updates
once a new release is available for patched modules?(in this last regard, patchinfo → module might be a relevant example)
Providing patches by requiring your own custom module makes more sense to me, as the user will have some UI feedback (at least at /admin/modules) to find out possible conflicts, and we keep code separate from config. I'm not an expert though: how is #4 even working right now?