🇨🇦Canada @danrod

This looks ok, thanks a lot @ritarshi_chakraborty , I'll merge to the main branch.

I applied the change and fixed a DrupalCI warning, there's some CSPELL/PHPCS/PHPSTAN issues that need to be fixed, but this is out of scope of this issue.

There you go, this patch should work for the 5.4.x branch.

Sorry, I forgot to include the patch

This looks ok and tested, thanks a lot, merging it.

Makes sense, I'll look into that today (a new MR coming)

I created a MR for this, even though there's a bunch of CSPELL/PHPCS/PHPSTAN issues to fix, but I guess that's covered in another issue. This can be reviewed

I added the patch for the 5.4.x branch, please review.

I took the liberty to create a MR for this, hope you don't mind.

This can be reviewed now.

I created a MR to fix that warning, please review.

I'll merge this to the 3.0.x branch.

I'd like to work on this one if you don't mind.

I'd like to work on this one if you don't mind.

danrod → created an issue.

danrod → created an issue.

I understand, thanks I will make some time to review this in detail and see what form/JS changes are needed.

I fixed the problems found by Drupal CI, there are two green checks now. Please review.

I created a MR for this, a review would be nice, I tested it myself and works as expected.

Closing this one, 7.x is deprecated for a while.

danrod → changed the visibility of the branch 3549176-use-oop-hook to hidden.

I tested the MR 34 and it looks ok to me, merging it.

I think we can close this one too.

I think we can close this one as "Fixed".

Thanks a bunch @avpaderno !!
For sure I will help the review process. Have a great evening !!

danrod → created an issue.

I'll join, thanks !

Hello @avpaderno,

Thanks a lot, I didn't realise this and I think I have the same problem (duplicate code instead of call to service methods) in some of the modules that I maintain, and of course I'll fix that too.

Meanwhile, I removed the duplicate code here and replaced it with the corresponding calls to the service methods, please review again.

Thanks a lot for your help and guidance, much appreciated. I also tested this on a D10.5.4 instance and worked like a charm.

Thanks!

Hello @avpaderno

Sorry for the delay on the fixes, I think I addressed all of them, please have a look and let me know if you have more questions.

I also fixed the PHPCS / PHPSTAN errors, I'll move this to review again.

I see that the maintainer is already there in the MAINTAINERS.txt file, or perhaps I am looking at the wrong file, anyways, I changed Alex to Alexey (Full first name).

Any issues please let me know.

Merged, thanks a lot to everyone involved.

Tested this on a D10.5.4 instance, I'll move it to RTBC.

Hey @ritarshi_chakraborty I'm editing some of your changes, because as far as I know, the hook_preprocess functions remain procedural: https://www.drupal.org/node/3442349 →

This looks ok to me, I'll merge it to the 1.0.x-dev branch.

Yes, a good start, but the description needs to be shortened to 200 characters.

I'll merge this to the 1.0.x, and create a new tagged release, please let me know if you still have issues with this.

Hi @stefan.butura , thanks for reporting this, I was able to replicate the error but your patch did not work, but I was able to commit the change in the MR.

I merged the MR (along with some minor changes) and indeed the libraries dependency is not needed at all, I tested the 2.0.x-dev release in a new D10.5.3 instance and worked with no issues.

Thanks a lot to everyone involved.

Actually, it looks like the Libraries → module is not needed at all. I can just remove it, I'll update the MR.

Merged, let me know if you have any questions @ankitv18 please let me know and I'll re-open this.

Merging to the 1.0.x branch now.

I created a MR and also removed D8/D9 in the composer.json, it think it is ready for review, but given that is such a small change, I'll probably close/merge this tomorrow.

Merged, thanks a lot @seanb .

Credits given.

Hi @seanb , I'm ok with this, would be a nice addition to the antibot.api.php API and it's a good starting point and it's up to the developer to implement extra validations or log the validation failure.

I'll merge this.

Done, seems not have any issues, gave you the credits.

Merged to the 2.0.x branch