Bug #55240
closed
check for broken extension shall consider fe_admin_fieldList
0%
Description
The Install Tool should check if a TYPO3 extension relies on the global array $GLOBALS['TCA'][$theTable]['feInterface']['fe_admin_fieldList'].
In most cases such an extension will not work under TYPO3 6.2.
Updated by Stefan Froemken over 10 years ago
Hello Franz,
we just have the same problem with sr_feuser_register. It costs me 2 hours of searching, because I thought it was a problem of my configuration. But I wonder that $this->data->fieldList in your code consists with only 9 fields. Where are they gone? Now I know it. They were removed in core.
For now I helped me with a very dirty trick:
In our project we have an api-Extension. I added all removed fields to our apis ext_tables.php and modified sr_feuser_register to load our api first in its ext_emconf.php (dependencies).
Stefan
Updated by Mathias Schreiber over 9 years ago
- Status changed from New to Needs Feedback
- Assignee set to Mathias Schreiber
Hi Franz,
could you define how to identify "relies on"?
I don't know the error in detail but does having the TCA set break the installation at some point?
Updated by Franz Holzinger over 9 years ago
The extension's PHP code uses the string $GLOBALS['TCA'][$theTable]['feInterface']['fe_admin_fieldList'. So it relies on it. And this string is not possible with TYPO3 6.2.
The FE of the extension will generate misterious output or even generate error messages. The user will lose many hours with investigations.
Updated by Mathias Schreiber over 9 years ago
Can you come up with a reliable solution how to check this?
We're talking about deep code inspection here which is like the most complicated thing in software engineering.
Updated by Christian Kuhn about 9 years ago
- Status changed from Needs Feedback to Rejected
Hey. The "Check for broken extensions" basically just checks if ext_localconf and ext_tables can be loaded without fatal. This just mostly only ensures the backend can come up without error.
Goal of the current implementation is not to change for arbitrary other stuff like the one mentioned. This would be a deep code inspection which is currently not planned for this functionality.
The issue is rejected for now.