Yes. That's fine. That was the meaning of my answer. Each developer will have their account.
Hello,
I'm posting this just for a written record. After discussion, we will follow your comments. We are switching this account to a shared account ("shared account" option in account profile), so it will no longer be personal. Also, we will contact a confirmed Drupal developer to support us in the development and validation of the addon. We close our validation requests from this account, the ephoto_dam account only becomes the owner of the addon and no longer the main developer.
Best regards,
@apaderno : If you need it, we can organize a video on the tool of your choice or I can send you a partial scan of my ID card. Tell me what I need to do to prove my identity.
Hoping for a positive response from you,
Best regards,
Dear apaderno,
From the start, I really tried to do well, there was never any bad intention as you say or any identity problem.
Here is how I experienced the sequence of events:
I am the main developer of the module, my colleague Fares Cherif is the secondary developer.
I wanted to open a validation post for my module. Also I noticed the "shared account" option in my account profile and as my English is not very good, I activated the "shared account" option in my account and asked my colleague Fares Cherif to respond to the questions.
https://www.drupal.org/project/projectapplications/issues/3328299 →
During the discussions, Fares responded to several of your comments. Then, you explained that it was not possible to use a shared account for validation (the account had to remain personal) and you closed the post.
Understanding that we had to follow the Drupal procedure without making any mistakes, we approached 2 mentors ( https://www.drupal.org/u/guillaumeg → and https://www.drupal.org/u/pameeela → ). Guillaumeg and pameeela took the time to explain my mistake to me and help me better formulate my request.
Fares Cherif therefore created his own account ( https://www.drupal.org/u/fcherif → ) and I changed my account to nominative (I removed the “shared account” option)
Fares Cherif then submitted a new validation request post yesterday from his account.
https://www.drupal.org/project/projectapplications/issues/3411033 →
You then respond to Fares that the primary maintainer must carry out the validation request and not the secondary maintainer.
So today I am submitting the application again as you requested, from my personal account. My mentor even helps me prepare the introductory post ( https://www.drupal.org/project/projectapplications/issues/3411163#commen... → ).
And again, you close the request!
I do not know how to handle the situation. We have followed all your requests to the letter.
My account is nominative, I followed all your requests, I respect the advice of my mentors and you still close my request.
Hello everyone,
I'd like to start this post with a look back on what happens with my previous post.
I tried to get the security advisory's certification.
Due to mistakes on my part as I was discovering Drupal's certification system, my query was deemed unfit, and the post was closed.
I'd like to start by apologizing for those mistakes made previously.
With this new post, I'll do my best to follow Drupal's rules for validation.
This account is used by one person, me, Arnaud Bour. A collaborator, Fares Cherif is also working on the project. The 10.x-5.x will be the branch I will be validating with this post.
Thank you in advance for any help or feedback you can give
ephoto_dam → created an issue.
We fixed the branch 8.x-3.x so that only the owner of drupal did commit in it and we corrected the profile of the owner
Alright, so if I understand correctly, if I create a new branch ( for instance 8.x-4.x ) and commit on this new branch using the account ephoto_dam, I can use this branch as the one which is getting verified. Is that correct ?
We've been using the name of the branches as former steps of the project and drupal versions
Therefore, the branches 7.x-1.x and 8.x-2x correspond of former steps and should be closed, however I haven't found a way to do it on drupalgit. Using that former branch would thus be an issue for our clients.
However creating a new branch such as 8.x-4.x or 9.x-4.x since it works on drupal 9 would be perfectly fine. Is that a sensible solution ?
On the account of the name of the user, Fares Cherif was a honnest mistake. The real owner of the project and of this account is Arnaud Bour, is it impossible to fix this mistake ?
In that case, what should be done ?
Should I put back the name of the account into Fares Cherif and create a new branch with it, thus having the only commit of that branch with the good name, or do you advice something else ?
I, Mr Arnaud Bour, am responsible for this account and will be the only person using it.
I am the sole owner of it.
I've changed the name of the account into the good one and was responsible for the previous commits.
If I where to collaborate with others in my company, is the following process good with you :
- each code what they are tasked with and push it to our private git
- I review it
- I push it to the drupal git
Thanks for all those indications
Changes has been made accordingly to your feedback.
One point which couldn't be fixed is in modules/ephoto_dam_field/src/Plugin/Field/FieldType/EphotoDamField.php
Why is not DataDefinition::create('uri') used in that case?
I've tried to use uri instead of string but this raises the following error when we try to create a structure content (translated ) :
This value must be of the correct primitif type
Since I haven't found a solution, I've left string for now.
Thanks for the feed back
I was using phpcs with the default standard, changed it to use the Drupal Standard and fixed the errors.
Fixed the branch names
removed README.tx
removed LICENSE.txt
removed the empty gitignore
completed the composer.json
corrected the code according to PHPCS