LQT has invalid composer.json
Closed, ResolvedPublic
Actions

Assigned To

Authored By

	Rudloff
	Jan 12 2016, 10:39 AM

Description

Hello,

The composer.json file is not valid:

./composer.json is valid for simple usage with composer but has
strict errors that make it unable to be published as a package:
See https://getcomposer.org/doc/04-schema.md for details on the schema
name : The property name is required
description : The property description is required
No license specified, it is recommended to do so. For closed-source software you may use "proprietary" as license.

It prevents people from easily installing the extension with Composer.
Would it be possible to add the missing fields?

Regards,

Details

	Subject	Repo	Branch	Lines +/-
	LQT updates to composer.json	mediawiki/extensions/LiquidThreads	master	+7 -0

Customize query in gerrit

Related Objects

Mentioned In: T135914: Valid composer.json for VisualEditor
Mentioned Here: T467: RfC: Extension management with Composer

Event Timeline

Rudloff created this task.Jan 12 2016, 10:39 AM

Rudloff raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.

Rudloff updated the task description. (Show Details)

Rudloff added a project: MediaWiki-extensions-LiquidThreads.

Rudloff subscribed.

Restricted Application added subscribers: StudiesWorld, Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptJan 12 2016, 10:39 AM

Reedy renamed this task from Valid composer.json to LQT has invalid composer.json.Jan 12 2016, 10:40 AM

Reedy set Security to None.

Aklapper added a project: good first task.Jan 12 2016, 4:56 PM

Updating composer file now :)

Change 263830 had a related patch set uploaded (by D3r1ck01):
LQT updates to composer.json

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/263830

gerritbot added a project: Patch-For-Review.Jan 13 2016, 10:32 AM

I need the names of the various information to put in the JSON composer file.
name, license and description.

In T123363#1930783, @D3r1ck01 wrote:

I need the names of the various information to put in the JSON composer file.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LiquidThreads

@Aklapper, thanks, before you replied, i already got the information from the exact source you gave me and @Rudloff, already reviewed the PS i submitted. :)

Change 263830 abandoned by D3r1ck01:
LQT updates to composer.json

Reason:
Composer is not used as a functionality to install new extensions. Abandoning this patch.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/263830

What I understand from T467, is that is has been decided that Composer's autoload should not be used to enable, extensions and I totally agree with that.
But Composer is still a very useful way to install extensions (and then we can enable them with wfLoadExtensions).

The proposed composer.json here does not use autoload at all and just provides a way to download the extension with Composer, which seems to comply with what has been said by @daniel in T467 :

Composer can and should be used to pull in any dependencies an extension may have, and it may also be used to install the code of an extension

@Rudloff, well you and @Legoktm should talk on it and if its fine, i will just reopen the patch let it be merged. For the record, i heard he is the defactor composer guru here....

Change 263830 restored by D3r1ck01:
LQT updates to composer.json

Reason:
Patch needs a discussion.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/263830

xSavitar moved this task from Backlog to Doing on the good first task board.Jan 15 2016, 1:37 PM

@Legoktm writes

we are not expanding the usage of using composer to install extensions.

This is not an agreed consensus as pointed out above.

I already commented on this practice 6 months ago:

I very much dislike how this RfC resolution is used to forbid people to use composer with extensions.

The patch does not add autoloading, hence there is no reason to block the merge.

This patch is still pending, like @Nikerabbit said, the patch does not add autoloading so i think it should be considered. Or does anyone still have something to say concerning the patch? @Legoktm, say something :)