- Issue created by @effulgentsia
- π§πͺBelgium wim leers Ghent π§πͺπͺπΊ
AFAICT a
settings.php
setting is impossible, because that'd then mean that everybody working on XB would have to set that πBased on the requirements in the issue summary, I think the following implementation would make sense:
- container parameter
- set by a hidden module
- which is installed by a recipe
Tried it and β¦ nope, any already-installed module appears at
/admin/modules/uninstall
, even if it gains ahidden: true
flag. That also means that the hidden submodule choice is equally simple to undo.So then β¦ I think still doing what I propose above, but labeling the module or something like that would be reasonable? (Perhaps even without the scary/silly suffix.)
- πΊπΈUnited States effulgentsia
I wonder if it would be sensible for a recipe to be able to set a container parameter?
- πΊπΈUnited States effulgentsia
For #3, I was thinking what if the Recipe system could read something from a recipe's yml file and use that to set something in the database that would affect the container parameter. But, I think that's incorrect as you point out. However, instead of setting a container parameter, it could perhaps set
state
?Alternatively, what if "demo mode" is actually the default, and instead there's "canary mode"? In this case, Drupal CMS wouldn't need to set anything, and XB could ship with a hidden xb_canary module that can be enabled via Drush, if you want to unlock XB's full functionality?
- π¬π§United Kingdom longwave UK
> Recipes can only install config or perform config actions.
So let's just use config? We don't have to provide UI, and in a future version of XB when we want to remove the flag, we can force-remove the config via an update hook.