Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

General discussion of development ideas and the approaches taken in the 3.x branch of phpBB. The next feature release of phpBB 3 will be 3.2/Rhea followed by 3.3.
Forum rules
Please do not post support questions regarding installing, updating, or upgrading phpBB 3.1. If you need support for phpBB 3.1 please visit the 3.1.x Support Forum on phpbb.com.

If you have questions regarding writing extensions please post in Extension Writers Discussion to receive proper guidance from our staff and community.
User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by DavidIQ » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:21 pm

John P wrote:
Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:12 pm
Wait for 3.2 but now reading about extensions not working on 3.2 or only for 3.1 etc.
This is not healthy I believe.
The extensions that are "broken" by 3.2 are those that use the notifications system and BBCodes, both of which account for probably less than 10% of all extensions.
Image

User avatar
John P
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by John P » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:54 pm

It's a lot more David, uploading, using extensionmanager for example.
Also a lot extensions are not in phpbb's cdb but running on phpbb for sure. Admins are using them on mass and it's bad they again have to switch only for a new version of phpbb.
phpbb should offer a way to have them compatible and running on both system so there is time to go to the next level.

Here a little example of extension using phpbb

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by DavidIQ » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:11 pm

Sorry I disagree that there is "a lot more". I might be generous and say it's close to 25% or even 30% of extensions but that's pushing it and that includes those that aren't in the CDB. In any case there isn't much to do here except adjust those extensions that need some changes for 3.2 compatibility.
Image

User avatar
david63
Registered User
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:23 am
Location: Lancashire, UK

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by david63 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:39 pm

I have to agree with John on this David. I think you will be surprised as to how many extensions will need to be changed, some albeit in only a small way, to work in 3.2.

The developers, probably with very good reasons, change core code which unwittingly impact on extensions and users rely on.

Elsewhere, two months ago, I asked the question as to what provision was going to be made for new versions of those in the CDB - the answer to which is "it is being discussed internally".
David
Remember: You only know what you know -
and you do not know what you do not know!

User avatar
paulus
Infrastructure Team Leader
Infrastructure Team Leader
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:02 am
Contact:

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by paulus » Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:54 am

david63 wrote:
Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:39 pm
Elsewhere, two months ago, I asked the question as to what provision was going to be made for new versions of those in the CDB - the answer to which is "it is being discussed internally".
And don't you think that if we finished that discussion, that we would have posted a answer? Please do not take something from a internal forum in a discussion about something complete else.
Image

User avatar
VSE
Extension Customisations
Extension Customisations
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:18 am

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by VSE » Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:58 am

Actually, having managed about 20 plus extensions, I can say that David is right.

The only extensions I have experienced that required updating to work with phpBB 3.2 due to backwards incompatibility were 3...2 of which were using notifications and the other was affected by font awesome's changes to the template layout for topic rows.

There are many more changes in 3.2.x that are basically optional, in that you don't have to use them to maintain compatibility with 3.1 and 3.2, but if you choose to use the new stuff, then you force yourself to go with 3.2 (for example using the new $language class instead of $user).

There's a topic explaining the known changes...either mandatory or optional...for 3.2.x in the ext writer's forum.
Has an irascible disposition.

User avatar
John P
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by John P » Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:35 am

Until now for everything I have a workaround or switch except for the notifications.
So the way it is now I have to maintain two version if the extension uses the noti system.
What is better in the new noti system, it has to be in 3.2 without being compatible with 3.1?

User avatar
RMcGirr83
Registered User
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:51 am
Contact:

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by RMcGirr83 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:06 am

There are significant performance improvements within the notification system.

As many of my extensions use styling I am not sure on how to make the extension work on both 3.1 and 3.2 and use the new styling without using a ton of switches for checking phpBB version or writing additional template files or something.

I just initiated uploading in the National flags extension for 3.1 so I will have to re-write it to be used on either 3.1 or 3.2.

The other extensions, thankfully don't look like they have to be changed except for the composer file if needed. Then again as extensions are supposed to be tested on phpBB prior to uploading into the CDB that would mean an extension writer would have to test their extension on both versions and, I assume, that also means the junior validators would also have to test on both versions as well.
Do not hire Christian Bullock he won't finish the job and will keep your money

User avatar
david63
Registered User
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:23 am
Location: Lancashire, UK

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by david63 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:10 am

RMcGirr83 wrote:
Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:06 am
assume, that also means the junior validators would also have to test on both versions as well.
The current "rules" state that an extension should be tested on the latest released version
David
Remember: You only know what you know -
and you do not know what you do not know!

User avatar
RMcGirr83
Registered User
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:51 am
Contact:

Re: Extension compatibility 3.1 - 3.2

Post by RMcGirr83 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:18 am

Hmmmm, well that may cause issues. Wonder how the CDB will handle that, eg
Noname.jpg
Do not hire Christian Bullock he won't finish the job and will keep your money

Post Reply