phpBB Ext Check - Diskussion bezüglich Prozedur und Reports

[StokerP]

I was more thinking if the EC was something we should keep private?
I havent seen it advertised anywhere. And who knows how much load it puts on your server.

Great tools like this should be advertised if theres no reason NOT to

[LukeWCS]

I was more thinking if the EC was something we should keep private?

There's nothing wrong with adding the EC report to the docs folder of an extension, as suggested.

Great tools like this should be advertised if theres no reason NOT to

To be honest, years ago I had the feeling that my phpBB Ext Check was perceived as "competition" because GitHub was preferred on phpBB.com. But not everyone can or wants to use GitHub, and EC is an alternative for precisely this group. I hope that EC is no longer seen as "competition" today, but rather as what it was created to be: an alternative.

See also: Re: How many extension developers use GitHub?

The other reason why I no longer want to present it on .com, for example, is quite practical: despite help from developers like gn#36, Mike-on-Tour, and others, the entire project is a one-man show, and its maintenance and further development cost me a lot of time and effort. And all of this needs to remain manageable for me; that's also one of the reasons why I'm not making the tool publicly available, because I want to and must ensure that it's only used by seriously interested developers who also possess a minimum level of knowledge. My energy is limited. ^^

[LukeWCS]

ping

I pinged you because I discovered a problem with CodeSniffer yesterday while sampling the reports.

The problem was as follows:

Code: Alles auswählen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 | ERROR | An error occurred during processing; checking has been aborted.
   |       | The error message was: Undefined array key "parenthesis_closer" in
   |       | /vendor/squizlabs/php_codesniffer/src/Standards/Generic/Sniffs/Functions/OpeningFunctionBraceBsdAllmanSniff.php
   |       | on line 75
   |       | The error originated in the
   |       | Generic.Functions.OpeningFunctionBraceBsdAllman sniff on line 75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you still have the ZIP file associated with this report:

2026-04-29 09:26:18 stoker_forumgoal_1-1-6

Or do you remember exactly what the code looked like? This is a bug in CS itself and needs to be fixed. I've already created an issue in the CS project, but the lead developer, Juliette, now needs the code causing the problem.

Undefined array key "parenthesis_closer" · Issue #1423 · PHPCSStandards/PHP_CodeSniffer

[StokerP]

I will search my pc and see what I can find

[StokerP]

Do you still have the ZIP file associated with this report:

2026-04-29 09:26:18 stoker_forumgoal_1-1-6

Or do you remember exactly what the code looked like? This is a bug in CS itself and needs to be fixed. I've already created an issue in the CS project, but the lead developer, Juliette, now needs the code causing the problem.

I found it and send it in PM at .com

[LukeWCS]

Thanks, Ulrik!

I just downloaded the ZIP file and was able to immediately reproduce the problem in my Ext Check development environment.

I'll now gather the information and add it to the CS project.

[StokerP]

No problem.

I found something that might be an issue.

I was adding support for the collapsible catefories and made a rookie mistake.

According to the guide we need this:

Code: Alles auswählen

use phpbb\template\template;
use phpbb\collapsiblecategories\operator\operator;

public function __construct(template $template, operator $cc_operator = null)
{
    $this->template = $template;
    $this->cc_operator = $cc_operator;
}

I forgot to add this line: $this->template = $template;

This gave NO errors on EC, but it certainly did on localhost.

I have no idea how the EC works, but my logic tells me that it should have caught it?
On the other hand, it is an obvious mistake and you will find it when testing.

[LukeWCS]

Sorry for the late reply, we are busy creating the phpBB.de packages for version 3.3.16.

This gave NO errors on EC, but it certainly did on localhost.

Okay, this would be a task for VA (Variable Analysis), since it involves an "unused" variable. It's quite possible that VA can't analyze across functions, because in this case it's a class property.

I have no idea how the EC works, but my logic tells me that it should have caught it?

Ext Check is very comprehensive, offering additional tools beyond the two official analysis tools (EPV, PPSSE) that phpBB GitHub itself doesn't even use. However, Ext Check isn't perfect and doesn't cover everything. For example, I'd like to integrate a Twig and JavaScript validator into Ext Check, but so far I haven't found anything suitable that I could use directly.

On the other hand, it is an obvious mistake and you will find it when testing.

Yep, this error is immediately noticeable when executing the corresponding class.

[LukeWCS]

Aus aktuellem Anlass (KI und Vibe Coding) habe ich heute die Nutzungsbedingungen präzisiert. Der Punkt 1.1.a wurde unterteilt in 2 Punkte, wobei sich der zweite Punkt mit Vibe Coding befasst.

Des Weiteren arbeite ich seit ein paar Wochen am nächsten Update, das vor allem mehrere Fixes und Verbesserungen auf dem Gebiet Fehlerbehandlung enthalten wird, also Dinge die EC und die Tools selber betreffen. Dabei wird auch das bei Stoker aufgetretene Problem berücksichtigt und ab sofort direkt als Ausnahmefehler eingestuft, damit auch in so einem Fall der Ausnahme-Mechanismus greift, der dann den Bericht und das ZIP in einen separaten Ordner sichert, damit das nicht von der automatischen Bereinigung gelöscht wird.

[Joe Kolade]

In den überarbeiteten Nutzungsbedingungen heißt es jetzt:
"Erlaubt sind nur Erweiterungen, die auch handgemacht wurden, also ohne Künstliche Intelligenz."

Ich möchte anregen, diese Regelung sprachlich zu präzisieren, da "ohne Künstliche Intelligenz“ aus meiner Sicht zu weit gefasst ist.
Eine AI-unterstützte Entwicklung, die den Entwickler mit Autovervollständigung, Refactoring-Vorschlägen, Syntaxhilfen und/oder punktuellen Codehinweisen unterstützt, ist moderne Praxis. Dennoch bleibt die fachliche Kontrolle vollständig beim Entwickler.
Vibe Coding bedeutet hingegen, dass größere Teile einer Erweiterung durch KI generiert und weitgehend ungeprüft übernommen werden, ohne dass der "Entwickler" Funktionsweise, Struktur, Sicherheitsaspekte oder Fehlermeldungen selbst nachvollziehen und eigenständig korrigieren kann.

Offensichtlich ist letzteres gemeint; entsprechend würde ich eine klarere Formulierung empfehlen, zum Beispiel:

"Nicht zugelassen sind Erweiterungen, deren wesentliche Bestandteile automatisiert durch KI erzeugt wurden, sofern der Einreicher den Code nicht selbst fachlich versteht, eigenständig warten und gemeldete Fehler ohne fremde Hilfe beheben kann. Zulässig bleibt der Einsatz von KI als unterstützendes Werkzeug im Rahmen eigenverantwortlicher Entwicklung."

Ich denke, so könnte man Missverständnisse vermeiden und zugleich deutlich machen, dass nicht jedes Nutzen moderner Werkzeuge automatisch "Vibe Coding" ist.

Just my 2 cents, Joe