Issue with Extras

So I’m having trouble with the extras section of modxcms.com - as it relates to upgrading to 2.1-pl

Seems like the attribute for "requires" may be misinterpreted as "version compatibility"... There is an attribute for "supports" which clearly was added to show if it was revamped for the ms sqlsrv driver that was added with 2.1+ - but there isn’t anything in this database to let authors publish the version(s) that they have tested the code with. This would be VERY helpful in deciding if it was even worth testing an upgrade.

Right now we have:

Requires Revolution 2.0.x or greater
Supports mysql

or...

Requires Revolution 2.0.x or greater
Supports mysql,sqlsvr

Can someone confirm that it is safe to assume that extras with sqlsvr listed are ALWAYS 2.1 compatible? Will that assumption also be true for 2.2-pl when it is released? Is it also true that ones that lack sqlsvr support are NOT 2.1 compatible, or just that they havn’t been tested, but they may be? Using Archivist 1.0.0-pl as an example. It is depreciated, so yes this is a made up example. But based on the published info (requires 2.0.x or greater, supports mysql) is there any way to tell if it is 2.1 compatible on a host running MySql?

Can we "enhance" the information in the extras to make that clear in the future?

Thanks!

If the add-on uses xPDO to connect to the database, it should work fine with any of the supported DB engines. If the add-on’s author has used MySQL code, however, all bets are off. All of the standard add-ons (Wayfinder, Breadcrumbs, getResources, etc.) should be fine. I’m sure we’ll be seeing reports if there are add-ons with problems and they will probably be fixed fairly rapidly.

If it doesn’t say sqlsrv compatible, and you’re using sqlsrv, it’s not compatible with your install.

If you’re using MySQL and 2.1, and it says at least 2.1 compatible, and says it supports mysql, you’re fine.

I don’t know of any Extras at the moment that support only sqlsrv - all support MySQL.

Quote from: splittingred at May 24, 2011, 10:58 PM

If it doesn’t say sqlsrv compatible, and you’re using sqlsrv, it’s not compatible with your install.

What needs to be done to extras to make them sqlrsv compatible?

Quote from: BobRay at May 24, 2011, 11:23 PM

What needs to be done to extras to make them sqlrsv compatible?

Their authors need to flag them as sqlsrv compatible if they are. Extras using custom database tables will need to generate sqlsrv maps and driver classes (similar to the mysql/ directory, see the core schema for example). Also, those Extras will need to ensure they’re not using any MySQL-specific queries.

Quote from: splittingred at May 24, 2011, 11:26 PM

Quote from: BobRay at May 24, 2011, 11:23 PM

What needs to be done to extras to make them sqlsrv compatible?

Their authors need to flag them as sqlsrv compatible if they are. Extras using custom database tables will need to generate sqlsrv maps and driver classes (similar to the mysql/ directory, see the core schema for example). Also, those Extras will need to ensure they’re not using any MySQL-specific queries.

So there are probably a number of extras that are sqlsrv compatible, but not marked as such?

I think all my extras would be compatible, but have no way of testing them.

Hi BobRay, I’m doing some testing with 2.1 and MSSQL, mail me a list of the packages you want testing and at least I can test if they install.

Quote from: splittingred at May 24, 2011, 10:58 PM

If it doesn’t say sqlsrv compatible, and you’re using sqlsrv, it’s not compatible with your install.

If you’re using MySQL and 2.1, and it says at least 2.1 compatible, and says it supports mysql, you’re fine.

I don’t know of any Extras at the moment that support only sqlsrv - all support MySQL.

I think I derailed the conversation a little with my logic tree. I was trying to use the sqlsrv flag as a decision point between "tested on 2.1-pl" and "not yet tested"...

The issue I have is that I’d love to spend time on something else if 8 of the extras I use are known to not work with 2.1 yet. That would save me a lot of time. The trouble is that plugins that say "requies 2.x or higher" are not "known to WORK with 2.1" they just have not been updated yet. There is a flag for the author to say "tested with "MySQL" and it is good" and there is a flag for "tested with "SQLSVR" and it is good" - but no place for the author to say "tested with v2.0 and it is good" or "tested with v2.1 and it is good"...

There doesn’t appear to be a home for that information, but the information that is there "requires 2.x or higher" would imply that it it will work with 2.x and higher... Or at least could imply that to some...

And then what about when 2.2 comes out? etc?

It would be nice for a way to organize version compatibility information. If possible. In the extras structure.

Quote from: nondescript at May 27, 2011, 11:34 AM

I think I derailed the conversation a little with my logic tree. I was trying to use the sqlsrv flag as a decision point between "tested on 2.1-pl" and "not yet tested"...
The issue I have is that I’d love to spend time on something else if 8 of the extras I use are known to not work with 2.1 yet. That would save me a lot of time. The trouble is that plugins that say "requies 2.x or higher" are not "known to WORK with 2.1" they just have not been updated yet. There is a flag for the author to say "tested with "MySQL" and it is good" and there is a flag for "tested with "SQLSVR" and it is good" - but no place for the author to say "tested with v2.0 and it is good" or "tested with v2.1 and it is good"...
There doesn’t appear to be a home for that information, but the information that is there "requires 2.x or higher" would imply that it it will work with 2.x and higher... Or at least could imply that to some...
And then what about when 2.2 comes out? etc?
It would be nice for a way to organize version compatibility information. If possible. In the extras structure.

There are three fields Extras submitters can change:

* Supports Databases (mysql,sqlsrv,etc) - all checkboxes
* Minimum Version Required - They must select a MODX version that the user must have at least up to to use this Extra, eg 2.0
* Supports Up To - They can optionally select a MODX version that this Extra will no longer work up to, e.g. 2.1 for a non-2.1-compat Extra

Those 3, when used, sufficiently cover any usage cases an Extra may have for compatibility. Furthermore, the MODX Package Management system respects those settings, and will not show Extras that do not fit those criteria.

Quote from: splittingred at May 27, 2011, 11:44 AM

There are three fields Extras submitters can change:

* Supports Databases (mysql,sqlsrv,etc) - all checkboxes
* Minimum Version Required - They must select a MODX version that the user must have at least up to to use this Extra, eg 2.0
* Supports Up To - They can optionally select a MODX version that this Extra will no longer work up to, e.g. 2.1 for a non-2.1-compat Extra

Those 3, when used, sufficiently cover any usage cases an Extra may have for compatibility. Furthermore, the MODX Package Management system respects those settings, and will not show Extras that do not fit those criteria.

Cool! Here is the issue. Supports up to is optional - at the time the extra was published it is unknown what future version will break it. So it isn’t specified. So now, if an extra doens’t list a max version compatible, is it compatible, or has the author just not updated it to show the now newly discovered incompatibleness?

Maybe this is an example where social media has the right model. If the optional "up to" isn’t specified by the author it would be nice to have some way for the community to throw their 2 cents in... "legacy" modules that aren’t getting support from the publisher any more would at least have a measure of if they work, based on votes of confidence from others who have tested it. Wouldn’t be a perfect system, butit could work with out putting all the work on the author...

Seems silly that I can’t tell if nobody has tested it, or if 500 people have already tested it. To be in the dark if no posts here mean that it works, or if I’m the only one using a particular extra. If the author hasn’t updaed the extra, does that mean it doesn’t need to be updated, or because they are working on an update?