►
From YouTube: 2022/02/17 - Weekly Dev
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right
we
are
live,
it
is
thursday
february
17th,
and
this
is
our
weekly
developer
check-in
meeting
before
we
get
started
on
the
agenda.
Let's
go
around
the
room
and
do
some
quick
introductions.
My
name
is
jen
linton,
I'm
joining
from
oakland
california
and
I
have
nothing
exciting
to
share
greg.
Do
you
want
to
go
next.
B
B
I've
been
doing
a
little
bit
of
work
with
regards
to
form
validation,
working
on
different
issues,
around
working,
my
way
towards
inline
yeah
and
trying
to
do
chord
reviewing
of
all
those
other
people's
work
and
progress.
Thank
you
as
much
as
I
can
robert.
C
I'm
margaret
lang
web
folder
on
the
internet,
coming
to
you
from
altadena,
california,
and
lately
I've
been
working
on
documentation
and
form
validations
and
a
little
tag
teaming
with
greg
pass.
D
It
to
tim
hi,
I'm
tim
erickson,
saint
paul
tim,
I'm
in
deerwood,
minnesota
and
yeah.
I've
kind
of
been
working
on
a
contrib
module,
helping
a
colleague
port,
a
a
trip
module
that
has
to
do
with
blocks
and
I'm
learning
a
lot
about
plots
and
in
background
and
that's
joseph
did
you
go
yet.
E
E
A
So,
let's
see
this
week,
we
had
a
handful
of
new
contributed
projects
that
came
out.
I
don't
know
who's
been
busy,
but
there
are
a
ton
of
new
projects
being
use,
photo
grid
pack
and
upload
active
tags,
title
length,
advanced
text,
formatter
and
ip
anonymize
all
came
out
in
the
last
week.
So
thank
you.
Everyone
working
on
those,
I
also
have
been
seeing
a
ton
of
new
contrib
projects
getting
created,
so
even
if
they
don't
have
stable
releases
right
now,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
activity
going
on
in
controv.
A
So
that's
exciting
from
the
forum
this
week
there
were
a
couple
of
issues
posted
that
would
like
to
be
discussed.
D
What
happened?
We
talked
about
that
in
some
dub
meetings
and
just
like:
where
should
we
put
it
and
and
decided
on
the
privacy?
Probably
policy
page
thought
we
thought
made
sense,
but
then
I
went
to
the
privacy
policy
page
and
I
realized
it
said
like
approved
by
the
pmc
on
a
certain
date
or
something.
Then
I
thought
well
wait
a
second.
This
looks
like
it's
an
official
document
and
I
don't
know
if
I
can
just
add
stuff
to
it.
So
we
we
did
approve
a
privacy.
D
We
did
approve
a
telemetry
policy,
so
I
I
actually
think
there's
a
linkedin
core
that
links
to
the
privacy
page,
so
that
would
be
the
best
place.
To
put
it.
If
you
think
that's
okay
and
I
just
wanted
approval
from
somebody
else
before
I
did
anything.
D
D
Sorry
under.
D
A
A
I
think
in
response
to
somebody
saying:
what's
your
privacy
policy
and
us
going
oh,
we
need
to
fix
that
and
then
iterating
on
it.
So
that's
probably
why
that
date
went
in
is
because
I
bet
we
changed
the
page
on
that
date
to
include
everything
the
pmc
had
voted
on.
I
don't
know
if
that
means
we
need
to
go
through
that
formal
process
again,
but
it
would
be
good
to
at
least
post
something
in
the
pmcq
saying
we're
making
this
addition
as
we'd
agreed
when
we
started
telemetry.
Here's
what.
A
Allow
room
for
conversation
around
that,
but
I
do
think
that
it,
since
we
have
new
telemetry
stuff
happening,
it
would
be
good
to
get
something
out
sooner
rather
than
later
and
we
should
revise
and
approve
if
it's,
if,
whatever
we
put
up
there,
isn't
isn't
immediately
accepted
by
everyone.
Okay,.
F
D
I
will
try
to
follow
through
on
that
and,
as
you
said,
we'll
check
the
pmc2
update.
The
pmc
probably
go
ahead
and
make
the
change
and
then,
if
we
need
to
make
further
changes.
A
All
right
so
next
item,
there's
an
issue
in
the
core
cue
issue:
number
933,
it's
been
around
for
a
while
about
changing
the
node
title
into
a
proper
field
so,
rather
than
having
it
be
a
special
attribute
for
an
entity
that
displays
in
strange
ways
and
template
files
gets
a
bunch
of
special
handling
to
convert
it
to
behave
more
like
everything
else,
all
the
other,
the
way
all
the
other
fields
behave.
A
This
is
something
there's
been
a
can
trip
module
for
this
in
drupal
for
a
long
time
for
people
who
want
their
titles
to
be
more
reasonable?
I
think
display
suite
included
some
things
that
turned
the
title
into
a
normal
field.
I
think
drupal
8
got
most
of
the
same
field
like
behavior
into
onto
titles
beyond,
so
it's
something
that
is
their
strong
demand
for,
and
so
I
don't
know
where
this
issue
is
now.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
has
seen
it
more
recently
than
I
have
I'll
just
go.
A
I
don't
know
so
I
think
the
original
request
was
just
to
remove
the
title
and
add
a
field
instead,
like
sort
of
convert
it
to
being
a
field.
But
my
major
concern
is
that
that's
going
to
require
a
lot
of
api
changes.
It's
going
to
break
a
lot
of
contrib
projects
that
are
expecting
things
to
be
where
they
are.
It's
going
to
break,
there's
just
a
lot
of
stuff
like
template
files.
A
From
the
section
on
the
configure
form
to
the
manage
fields
page
and
see
if
we
can
clean
up
as
much
as
we
can
in
the
user
experience
area
without
actually
changing
the
way
the
title
works,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
going
to
get
us
close
enough
to
title
being
a
field
because
you're
still
not
going
to
get
all
the
same
settings,
you
would
get
for
a
field,
and
so
I
think
for
backdrop
two
that
might
be
something
we
can
consider
where
we
can
sort
of
prepare
people
ahead
of
time
and
be
like
hey
all
of
your
template
files
are
gonna
need
to
be.
A
You
know,
rewritten
to
remove
the
h2
tag
or
whatever
but
yeah.
I
don't.
I
don't
know
why
it
was
requested
that
we
talk
about
this
issue
today.
Let
me
see,
I
think
it.
D
Was
me
okay
and
here's
the
context
which
is
the
the
the
node
or
the
pathless
node
issue?
Olaf
would
like
to
be
able
to
display
nodes
with
the
image
above
the
title,
so
the
behavior
he's
looking
for
now
that
doesn't
mean
that
he
doesn't.
He
wouldn't
like
more.
D
I
don't
know,
but
the
behavior
he
would
like
is
just
simply
to
be
able
to
put
the
title
below
the
image
on
a
note,
and
he
kind
of
considers
that
a
blocker
for
this
issue-
and
I
I
was
sensing
in
the
issue
to
you-
that
that
there
was
sort
of
momentum
between
that.
We
can't
do
this
in
one
point
x
and
I
just
wanted
to
throw
it
on
the
agenda
because
sometimes
when
we
talk
about
it
in
a
meeting,
we
suddenly
find
things
that
in
the
issue
we
we
don't.
D
A
A
Appears
outside
a
div
with
all
the
content
in
it,
and
so
that's
the
thing
that
will
break
the
template
files
if
we
were
to
introduce
it
now.
That's
what
makes
me
nervous
that
doesn't
mean
it's
not
possible.
There
is
probably
a
way
that
we
could
handle
via
pre-processing
some
special
logic
around
title
handling
that
could
detect.
If
the
title
was
in
the
content
area
and
not
display
the
title
tag,
you
know
we
aren't
going
to
know
what
we're
going
to
be
facing
with
people
who
have
custom
themes.
A
Who've
like
hard-coded
the
h2
tag,
regardless
of
whether
there's
a
title
there
or
not,
but
we
do
know
in
court
template
files,
there's
a
check
to
see
if
it's
on
the
page
or
not
before
the
title
is
printed.
We
could
leverage
that
somehow
in
pre-process
and
and
set
that
flag
to
indicate
something
other
than
whether
it's
the
main
page
or
not
to
make
the
title
show
or
hide.
So
I
think
if
we
looked
into
it
technically,
there
might
be
a
way
that
we
could
introduce
that
kind
of
functionality
in
one.x.
A
That
was
backwards
compatible,
but
it
just
sets
off
a
whole
bunch
of
like
red
flags
for
me
that
it's
gonna
be
really
complicated,
and
if
we
could
just
push
that
part
of
it
to
backdrop,
two,
we
would
save
ourselves
a
lot
of
time
and
frustration
and
hopefully
be
able
to
do
it
with
less
breakage
for
pre-existing
sites.
A
It
could
also
be
something
where
there's
like
a
user
interface
setting.
That's
like
if
you've
installed
backdrop
before
1
22.
You
don't
see
this
feature
and
then
you
can't
break
your
current
site
and
then,
if
you
installed
a
new
version,
you
would
get
the
option
to
be
like
use
my
template.
The
way
it
normally.
B
A
D
D
Okay,
oh,
but
no
okay,
that
doesn't
solve
the
problem
for
our
quarter
issue.
Okay,
I
was
out
for
a
minute
there.
I
was
thinking
we
were
talking
backdrop.org
and
look
well.
We
could
have
just
installed
a
contrib,
but
this
isn't
about
backdrop.
This
is
about
right,
a
course
layout
profile.
So
we
would
okay,
but
right.
A
E
A
D
I
don't
know
if
this
is
actually
a
blocker.
I
think
olaf
just
believes
that
sort
of
the
standard
practice
in
these
blocks
that
we
want
to
put
on
the
front
page
would
be
to
have
the
title
and
then
the
or
the
image
and
then
the
title
underneath
it,
but
that
doesn't
have
to
be
that
way.
We
could
have
the
title
above
it
just
won't.
Look
as
good.
A
We
could
also
think
about
other
ways
to
solve
that
problem.
Right
like
this
is
the
specific
node
type
that
we're
using
for
replacing
items.
We
could
provide
a
template
file
that
overrided
the
way
a
node
displayed
for
that
individual
template.
A
But
if
it's
a
card,
we
don't
have
that
same
semantic
structure,
so
probably
remove
the
content
div
we
could
put
stuff
in
whatever
order
we
wanted
in
that
template
file.
So
I
think
there
are
other
solutions
to
do
that.
That
olaf
is
right
are
not
maybe
the
standard
way
of
doing
it.
If
you
had
a
user
interface,
you'd
have
more
control
over
that,
but
we
could
get
the
result.
He
wants
in
a
way
that
leverages
what's
in
core
today.
D
A
It
might
also
be
helpful
to
show
like
a
couple
of
alternative
pull
requests
for
that
too.
Just
like
here's,
a
super
straightforward
example
of
like
what
a
template
file
would
look
like,
and
then
you
can
try
it
in
a
sandbox
and
see
if
that
user
experience
feels
really
wonky
or
not
because
sometimes
if
your
field
ui
order,
doesn't
affect
what
you
see
in
a
template
file
that
can
be
really
confusing
for
people
so
yeah.
There
is
some
usability
considerations
too,
when
you
start
making
things
a
little
too
custom
in
the
theme
layer.
E
Yeah,
I
think
we
have
some
issues
to
implement
more
of
the
like
field
layout
features
from
display
suite
in
core,
so
that
we
can
kind
of
get
around
this.
D
A
Okay,
well,
hopefully,
olaf
will
get
to
watch
this
and
that
this
video
and
it'll
help
answer
some
of
his
questions,
but
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
a
blocker.
I
think
it
is
important
to
consider,
but
there
might
be.
A
A
I
don't
know
if
you
have
thoughts
on
this
peter,
but
this
is,
let's
see
specifically
around
file
access
functions,
so
this
is
number
5480
in
the
core
queue.
A
A
Node
does
not
have
one,
should
it
be
optional,
a
string
or
object,
but
not
null
if
it
should
be
optional,
how
detailed
should
possible
checks
be
some
permissions
require
a
file
entity
in
place.
Some
do
not,
or
does
checking
without
an
actual
file.
Make
things
too
complicated
is
the
overall
direction
of
the
pull
request.
Okay,
currently
we
strive
to
make
file
access
the
main
function,
file,
access,
a
wrapper,
so
file
underscore
access.
A
wrapper
and
file
underscore
file
underscore
access
to
fully
cover
all
operations
in
the
hook.
A
So
I
don't
know
if
any
core
developers
have
reviewed
that
issue
yet,
but
it
looks
like
we
need
a
code
review
on
the
current
approach
to
make
sure
that
it
makes
sense
for
the
solution.
B
Into
that
that
issue,
I
have
to
look.
What
was
the
issue
number
again.
A
So
file
is
an
entity
type
in
backdrop,
as
it
was
in
file
entity
in
drupal,
7
and
as
it
is
in
drupal,
8
and
beyond,
but
file
permissions
are
a
little
bit
different
than
other
types
of
content,
because
in
addition
to
having
access
to
view
the
thing,
when
you
view
a
file,
you
also
are
like
you
might
be
viewing
the
file
entity,
but
you
also
need
to
try
and
actually
view
the
document
that's
attached
to
it,
and
so
there's
sort
of
two
levels
of
viewing
going
on
there,
and
I
don't
remember
exactly
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
today
with
what
file
view
behaves.
A
I
remember
only
the
very
beginning
of
that
process.
I
think
greg
and
then
it
goes,
and
I
were
having
a
conversation
about
it
and
I'm
like
that's
not
how
it
works
and
they're
both
like.
Yes,
it
is
I'm
like
well,
I
obviously
have
no
idea,
that's
anything
going
on
with
this
anymore,
so
there
is
some
complexity
around
file.
Viewing
there's,
also
some
complexity
around
access
checking.
I
know
in
drupal.
B
It's
not
it's,
it's
not
only
complexity.
It's
also
inconsistencies
between
the
respective
underscore
access,
yeah.
A
B
So
so
I
mentioned
that
this
is
out
of
my
depth
and
rg
piano
and
diddy.
B
Gozella
have
been
going
back
and
forth
and
doing
an
awesome
job
at
some
point
added
a
comment,
but
it
was
just
a
generic
comment
and
then
I
think
that
to
help
with
the
discussion
to
facilitate
the
discussion,
they
they
moved
specific
comments
by
they
I
mean
indigozala
and
argentano
moved
the
comments
into
the
pr
and
they're
waiting
for
feedback
there
on
specific
items,
but
I
didn't
see
any
core
commuter
actually
commenting
on
the
pr
so
yeah.
A
A
And
then
that's
it
for
issues
that
were
posted
in
the
forum.
Actually,
there
was
one
more
about
alternative
database
support.
That
sounds
like
it's
been
answered.
Somebody
was
just
asking
if
we
were
planning
on
supporting
databases
other
than
mysql,
and
we
mentioned
that
silkscreen
cms
has
alternative
database
support
in
it.
So,
in
short,
no.
A
But
people
who
are
using
it
so.
B
B
So
I
think
that
it's
good,
if
we
updated
it,
move
removed
the
bits
that
are
not
applicable
anymore
and
then
also
provided
a
leak
to
self
train
and
mention
that
it's
a
drop
in
replacement.
That
follows
the
changes
in
the
main
battery.
B
Project
and
that's
it
yeah
yeah,
and
I
think
that
the
person
that
was
testing
things
mentioned
that
they
they
grabbed
a
one
of
the
modules
in
contrib
land
force
screen,
and
they
put
it
in
backdrop
and
it
was
working
out
of
the
box
for
them.
I
kind
of
I
was
surprised
that
this
happened,
because
I
think
that
we
removed
everything
that
had
to
do
with
database
subtraction.
B
E
A
lot
of
our
abstractions
that
one
in
particular,
and
also
the
one
for
field
back-ends
like
we
say,
we've
removed
them,
but
kind
of
we've,
just
like
turned
off
how
they're
exposed
to
the
outside
and
internally,
they
still
use
them.
A
B
Yeah
and
and
then
the
other
suggestion
now
that
I
have
this
new
input,
the
other
suggestion
that
that
was
made-
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
by
the
same
person
or
heard
that
chimed
in,
was
that
if
we
could
move
that
that
project
from
silkscreen's
contribute
to
our
contrib.
But
I
don't
know
if
it's
yeah.
B
So
if
you
basically
yes,
so
if
you
look
at
the
last
comment
by
andy
goszella
on
issue,
5510,
there's
a
link
there
to
silk
screen
cms
dash
contrib
and
it's
the
database
underscore
pgs
sql.
B
55
55
10,
yes,
and
it's
nice
that
yeah,
because
basically
looking
at
the
dot
info
file
of
that
project,
it's
it
specifies
a
type
equals
driver
which
is
not
supported
by
a
backdrop.
So
my
understanding
was
that
it
was
gonna
require
silkscreen
but
yeah.
Maybe
maybe
it
does
work.
E
B
E
A
Yeah
and
because
the
majority
of
contrib
modules
are
only
ever
run
on
my
sequel,
you're,
going
to
run
into
problems
where
people
have
never
tested
anything
on
postgres
and
they're
not
going
to
have
noticed
the
things
and
then
even
if
they
were
like
fixes
submitted
for
it,
they
might
never
get
merged
because
no
one
else
can
ever
test
them.
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
like
it
might
work,
but
you
might
be
on
your
own
in
terms
of
fixing
problems
when
it
doesn't.
A
So,
let's
see
so
just
for
getting
to
the
end
of
the
hour
here
this
wednesday
we
had
a
security
release,
really
we
released
back
to
version
121.2
and
that
came
out
in
conjunction
with
a
release
of
drupal.
At
the
same
time,
drupal's
release
and
backdrops
drupal,
7's
and
backups
change
were
exactly
the
same.
One
line
change
very
minimal
drupal
8,
I
think,
also
had
a
her
drupal
9
had
a
quick
edit
update.
A
Also,
we
did
thanks
to
tim
and
peter
for
doing
the
research
on
it
find
out
about
a
cve,
so
a
security
advisory
notice
publicly
that
had
been
posted
about
a
vulnerability
in
backdrop
that
nobody
had
notified
backdrop
about,
which
is
usually
very
unusual.
Sometimes
when
you
request
a
cve
there's
a
section
in
there
that
requires
that
you
have
notified
the
software
project
about
the
vulnerability
before
they
create
a
public
notice
about
it
and
whoever
discovered
this
vulnerability
did
not
actually
notify
our
project
about
it.
A
And
yet
somehow
the
organization
that
releases
these
police
details
on
it
anyway,
and
so
our
plan
is
to
do
another
security
release
next
wednesday
that
resolves
that
issue.
So
we're
sort
of
in
a
hurry
to
get
it
out
just
because
it's
out
there
and
there's
a
website,
people
are
selling
exploits
for
five
thousand
dollars
a
piece,
so
it
would
be
good
to
get
that
hole
plugged
up
as
fast
as
possible.
So
we
should
plan
on
another
security
release
coming
out
next
wednesday.
A
And
then
I
don't
have
any
specific
updates
for
122.
A
Just
checking
the
milestone
here,
it
looks
like
we
currently
have
four
issues.
We've
talked
a
little
bit
about
hiding
the
hidden
path,
content
typing
core.
That
was
where
the
title
field
issue
was
relevant
and
it
looks
like
greg
is
working
on
the
custom,
validation
errors
for
required
fields.
That's
a
blocker
for
the
inline
form
errors.
I
think
that
one.
A
I
Yeah,
but
I'm
probably
gonna
drop
off
his
advocate
for
that,
because
I
don't
think
it's
going
anywhere
yet.
Okay.
A
Okay,
so
it
looks
like
we
don't
have
any
other
updates
for
122,
which
is
good,
because
we've
only
got
three
minutes
left.
So
is
there
anything
anyone
wants
to
talk
about
today
that
wasn't
on
the
list?
Go
ahead,
craig.
B
So
I've
have
two
issues:
5503
and
5504
that
are
related,
and
I,
if
I
knew
maybe
it's
better
than
a
split,
if
I
knew
that
they
both
can
attach
the
vertical
tabs
as
file,
would
have
merged
those
two,
but
I
don't
mind
dealing
them
with
them
separately.
B
One
of
them
aims
to
put
indicators
in
vertical
tabs
and
field
sets
just
to
show
that
there's
required
fields
within
within
them
just
to
give
an
indication
and
then
55
of
four
aims
to
automatically
switch
to
the
first
tab
with
the
first
required
field
that
has
not
required,
but
first
field
that
has
not
validated
so
far.
B
I
still
need
to
tweak
it
thanks
for
the
feedback
robert,
but
even
if
I
fix
the
the
small
issue
that
robert
mentioned,
how
it
works
is
if
there's
multiple
tabs
that
have
fields
that
fail,
validation,
how
it
works
is
the
person
will
from
a
user
experience,
point
of
view.
The
person
would
click
the
submit
button
and
they
would
get
a
summary
of
all
the
validation
errors
at
the
top.
Some
of
them
might
be
visible
fields
in
the
rest
of
the
form.
B
A
Before
we
get
into
the
technical
details
here,
we
should
not
be
fixing
either
of
these
things
in
core
the
problem
is
there
should
never
be
a
required
field
in
a
vertical
tab.
The
whole
point
of
a
vertical
tab
means
that
you
can
ignore
everything
in
that
tab
and
hit
save,
and
nothing
will
happen
if
there
is
a
required
field
in
a
vertical
tab.
It
needs
to
have
a
default
value.
A
A
B
Okay,
I
I
generally
agree,
but
if
you
go
into
specifics
so
so,
first
of
all,
I'm
trying
to
in
generally
prevent
people
from
shooting
themselves
on
the
foot
and
and
making
bad
decisions
affect
the
user
experience.
B
A
Other
experience
should
be
if
somebody
builds
something
that
doesn't
work
the
way
it's
supposed
to
work.
There
should
be
like
a
warning
there
that
says:
hey
if
you're
going
to
put
a
required
field
in
a
vertical
tab,
it
needs
to
have
a
default
value,
and
then
we
never
have
to
worry
about
this
scenario
happening
because
they're
using
it
properly
like.
I
don't.
B
Sure,
sorry,
sorry
just
just
lost
one
thing
and
then
I'll
allow
you
to
say
a
thing.
So
one
of
the
things
that
triggered
this
whole
thing
is
that
an
issue
that
peter
was
working
on
where
it
adds
a
feature
where
you
make
the
revision
log
field
required.
What
would
be
the
default
value
there.
A
This
this
page
was
edited
on
xdate,
something
like
that
doesn't
matter
whatever
you
want,
whatever
you
put
in
your
configuration
form
that
just
if
you're
going
to
make
that
field
required,
then
on
the
configuration
form
where
it
says
default
value
for
this
field.
That
field
is
also
required.
You
can
never
get
into
a
scenario
where
there's
never
a
message
in
that
box.
B
B
A
Is
that
ignore
ignore
this?
If
you
have
a
required
field
that
needs
to
have
a
new
value
in
it,
it
gets
moved
outside
the
vertical
tabs
and
sits
above
them,
and
it's
like
you
can't
ignore
this.
It's
on
the
form.
Now
you
have
to
see
it
because
you
can't
hide
something.
That's
important
like
in
the
whole
point
of
verbal
times
to
hide
it
to
like
decrease
the
the
impact
of
a
form
that
could
have
a
hundred
fields
on
it
right.
A
B
B
A
Let
me
see
if
I
can,
let
me
see
if
I
can
find
it
there.
I
know
there's
a
bunch
of
drupal
usability
information
documentation.
I
don't
know
that
that
got
translated
to
backdrop
anywhere,
but
let
me
check
this
out
because.
E
B
Well,
I
know
what
jen
is
talking
about.
There's
a
document
somewhere
indeed.org.
Maybe
it's
we
copy
that
over.
You
know,
I
think,
which
is
says
this
element
where,
when
to
use
it
when
not
to
use
it,
that's
what
you're
referring
to
yeah.
A
B
C
Yeah,
so
I
think
the
difference
between
whether
you
fill
in
the
required
field
or
leave
a
required
field.
Blank
or
you
put
in
something
that's
incorrect
and
that
won't
validate
is
kind
of
blurry.
C
And
so,
even
if
we
don't
put
required
fields
in
vertical
tabs,
we
can
still
have
fields
and
vertical
tabs
that
need
validation,
and
if
we
fail
to
validate,
then
we
still
ought
to
highlight
the
first
vertical
tab
that
fails
validation,
which
is
part
of
I
think
what
craig
was
working
on.
Yes,
there
are
definitely
modules
in
the
wild
that.
B
C
So
you
know
what
I
know
about
for
sure
is
ubercart
that
if
you
do
a
claims,
install
of
uber
cart
and
then
you
go
to
one
of
the
settings
pages
that
has
a
bunch
of
vertical
tabs
and
some
of
those
are
blank
and
you
try
to
save
and
it
will
complain
at
you
about
several
of
them,
and
so
this
validation
and
selecting
the
tab
that
was
failing
would
be
really
useful.
A
A
For
that,
though,
like
that
doesn't
seem
like
a
course
problem,
but
they're
misusing
a
core
feature,
I
would
like
to
know
if
there's
a
use
case
for
just
encore
alone
like
if
we
can
create
a
like
node
form
or
something
that
has
this
scenario,
where
we're
not,
depending
on
somebody
having
done
something
wrong
like
I,
I'm
just
gonna
brainstorm
here
and
see
if
I
can
come
up
with
something
but
like
okay,
so
of
the
vertical
tabs,
we
have
like
a
schedule
date
in
one
of
them.
A
We
have
like
authoring
information,
so
if
you
would
happen
to
like
choose
a
date
in
the
past
to
schedule
two,
I
don't
know
if
that
throws
a
validation
error,
but
let's
just
pretend
it
does,
and
then
you
would
click
to
the
next
tab,
and
then
you
had
like
tried
to
change
the
author
name
to
like
a
username
that
didn't
exist
in
your
system
is
was.
Is
that
a
scenario
where
you
can
be
triggering
validation,
failure
on
two
vertical
tabs
at
the
same
time
like?
E
A
For
drupal
it
was
the
solution
to
drupal
6
usability
studies
when
they
looked
at
the
node
form.
That
was
like
9
000
miles
long
and
they're
like.
How
do
we
make
this
less
overwhelming
to
people
and
they
did
a
bunch
of
studies
and
they
realized
that
it
you,
if
you
could
move
things
that
were
safely
ignorable
to
a
place
where
people
didn't
have
to
see
them.
It
made
using
the
nord
form
less
unpleasant
for
everyone.
So
you-
and
this
was
documented
somewhere
like
there's
something.
A
The
common
design
patterns
that
exist
within
drupal
and
what
they're
intended
for
and
when
you
should
use
them
and
when
you
shouldn't,
and
it's
very
common
in
drupal,
that
module
developers
see
a
pattern
in
some
place
and
go.
Oh
I'll.
Just
use
that
and
apply
it
everywhere
without
understanding
the
intent
of
the
design
pattern
and
that's
how
you
end
up
with
a
system
like
drupal
that
is
very
unintuitive
and
hard
for
people
to
understand
and
editors
get
super
frustrated
with,
and
so.
A
Yeah,
and
so
when
we
first
started
with
backdrop,
we
had
a
big
goal
is
to
create
something.
Apple
has
something
like
this
too,
called
a
user
interaction
guide
or
something
like
this.
I
forgot
it
was
on
our
design
meeting
agenda
for
like
two
years
and
we
had
someone
volunteer
to
make
it
and
they
started,
and
then
they
disappeared,
and
so
it
didn't
get
anywhere,
but
it
was
essentially
going
to
be
this
document
that
greg
is
talking
about
for
developers
of
backdrop
to
be
like.
When
do
I
use
a
vertical
tab?
A
When
do
I
use
an
accordion?
When
do
we
use
a
field
set?
When
do
I
use?
I
don't
know
auto
complete
whatever
the
heck
date
picker,
and
it
would
have
all
of
that
same
information
in
it
for
people
who
are
building
interfaces,
so
the
backdrop
would
have
one
cohesive
experience
rather
than
being
like
drupal,
where
on
any
given
page,
you
don't
know
what
any
of
the
design
patterns
tell
you.
As
a
user.
B
Yeah,
having
said
that-
and
I
think
peter
should
go
next,
because
he
has
these
hand
raised
that
document
doesn't
refer,
have
any
reference
for
required
fields,
and
it
doesn't
say:
don't
do
it.
It
says
recommendations
but
yeah
anyways.
It
seems
that
we're
enforcing
instead
of
recommending
peter.
I
I
B
I
Developers
themselves
and
then
know
that
and
that
they're
never
going
to
read
this
stuff
so
one
I
think
we've
got
a
documentation
problem
and
two.
I
think
this
needs
to
be
very
much
more
put
out
there,
because
I've
never
heard
of
it
and
if
and
if
we're
having
these
problems,
because
people
don't
know
about
this,
then
that's
an
issue.
A
Yeah,
I
mean
so
part
of
it.
Is
that
like,
if
you
have
a
good
design,
the
end
user
will
never
know
these
things
right,
they'll
just
use
it
enough
that
they've
learned
that
they
never
need
to
look
at
the
vertical
tabs,
and
if
you
have
something
like
drupal,
where
somebody
starts
to
make
that
assumption,
and
then
they
install
ubercart
and
all
of
the
assumptions
they've
made
about
how
to
interact
with
the
page
are
no
longer
correct.
A
A
In
drupal,
module
developers
have
never
like
historically,
never
had
any
documentation
that
tells
them
when
to
use
which
patterns,
and
so
you
know
originally,
it
was
just
everybody
has
field
sets,
and
so
everyone
used
fields
that
was
fine
and
then
later
we
started
creating
these,
which
are
probably
incorrect
like
or
not
up
to
date
or
whatever,
as
greg
found
some
of
them.
I
don't
even
know
if
they
include
all
of
the
fancy
things
that
are
in
tripoli
or
not,
but
yeah.
A
B
Why
should
we
when
we
can
fix
the
user
experience
of
users,
the
user
experience
problem?
Is
I
have
a
validation
error
saying
that
there's
a
required
field
somewhere
and
I
don't
see
it
and
we
in
core?
If
developers
did
a
right
or
wrong
thing
made,
a
bad
decision
can
fix
the
user
experience
so
that
the
user
sees
that
and
they're
not
frustrated,
starting
looking
through
tabs
right.
B
I'm
with
you
but
sorry
can
you
can
you
elaborate
on
what
is
the
exact
thing
that
becomes
worse
jen
the.
A
Fact
that
you
like,
if
you're
using
a
product
and
over
you,
know
five
years,
you've
used
it
or
whatever
you've
sort
of
learned
how
to
navigate
pages.
And
you
know
you
only
need
to
look
this
stuff
above
the
fold.
And
now
you
get
to
one
page
where
it's
now
throwing
like
errors
at
you
that
you
can't
ignore
the
stuff
below
the
fold
you're
not
going
to
just.
B
B
D
One
module
generated
a
flag,
and
so
now
they
think,
oh,
I
have
to
look
at
these
at
all
of
them
and
now
you've
defeated
the
purpose
of
having
vertical
taps
yeah,
because
the
whole
purpose
was
to
give
them
some
place.
I
mean
again,
I've
never
heard
this
before
either,
but
I'm
hearing
the
argument
and
repeating
it
back.
B
B
If
I'm
I'm
faced
with
this
thing,
that
says,
please
fix
this
error
and
I
don't
know
where
that
error
is.
Then
that's
a
user
experience
problem
and
I'm
saying,
regardless
of
what
developers
do
they
might
make
bad
decisions,
either
contrib
or
custom
right?
We
can
help
the
end
user
spot,
which
thing
they
need
to
fix
what
that
causes.
B
A
E
A
E
A
E
Second
thing
is
that,
like
I,
I
really
think
that
I'm
with
greg
here,
we
should
fix
this,
because
if
we
force
people
to
rewrite
their
forms
in
order
to
be
compliant,
then
that
is
going
to
increase
the
barrier
of
to
entry
for
people
moving
their
stuff.
From
back
to
triple
to
backdrop,
and
like
I'm,
not
okay
with
that,
I.
A
J
A
B
Years
I'll
mention
something
similar
that
we
actually
fixed
right,
which
again
people
didn't
know
about
it,
because
it's
not
well
documented
enough.
We
have
split
the
huge
help
text
for
publishing
options
and
out
of
all
the
developers
that
work
with
the
form
api.
Very
few
know
that
you
can
actually
do
individual
help
text
things,
so
they
weren't
doing
it.
We
actually
fixed
it
for
them
right.
B
It's
another
thing
that
wasn't
well
documented:
it
existed
somewhere
as
a
comment
in
some
documentation,
some
api
form
and
whoever
was
faced
with
this
problem-
knew
about
it,
but
it
was
very
few
like
one
out
of
1000
people
knew
about
it
right
and
I
think
it
falls
in
the
same
thing
in
the
same
situation
that
contrib
or
people
that
didn't
know
about.
This
will
make
bad
decisions
without
knowing
that
it's
bad
decisions,
until
they
somebody
tells
them
the
other.
I
want
peter
to
just
talk.
I
For
the
record,
I'm
with
greg
and
joseph
that
I
think
this
idea
should
go
ahead
and
we
should
make
it
better
for
users,
regardless
of
the
developer,
that
built
their
site.
We
should
make
it
easier
for
users
to
find
stuff
that
needs
fixing
on
a
form.
Secondly,
the
quick
scheming
of
that
article
that
was
posted
like
the
drupal
specifications,
for
this
shows
me
that's
a
recommendation,
not
a
requirement.
It
sounds
like
we're
trying
to
make
it
a
requirement.
I
If
that's
the
case,
we
need
to
put
documentation
in
backdrop
not
linked
to
drupal,
and
I
think
you
need
to
open
an
issue
to
make
it
a
requirement,
because
it's
currently
not
you
can
do
whatever
you
want
in
backdrop:
you're
not
forcing
people
to
put
required
fields
in
the
main
form.
If
you
want
to
change
that,
I
think
you
need
to
open
an
issue,
get
feedback
and
then
put
the
documentation
in
place
for
backdrop
and
make
a
general
announcement
about
it,
because
that's
not
the
way
things
work
currently.
I
B
Yeah
right
back
to
the
the
thing
that
I
was
saying,
which
is
related
to
what
peter
just
said,
is
that
what
I'm
trying
to
fix
is
not
guide
developers
into
creating
good
modules.
What
I'm
trying
to
fix
is,
if
developers
because
of
wrong
documentation
because
of
sloppiness.
I
don't
know
what
have
made
the
wrong
decisions,
I'm
trying
to
improve
the
user
experience
for
the
end
users
that
have
to
deal
with
these
modules.
That's
what
I'm
saying
yeah.
A
I'm
definitely
getting
the
feeling
that
I
am
the
only
one
on
the
other
side
of
this
fence,
so
here's
a
potential
compromise,
my
goal,
as
you
know,
having
been
on
the
drupal
usability
team
through
all
these
studies
and
watchings
and
being
in
the
room
where
they
had
all
these
conversations
coming
with
all
these
solutions.
I
probably
know
a
lot
more
about
this
than
anyone
else,
and
I
agree
that
this
is
not
well
documented,
even
for
the
drupal
community,
but
the
answer
was,
but
I
don't
know
this
is
the
solution.
A
They
came
up
with
to
make
drupal
more
user-friendly
and
didn't
get
there,
and
so,
when
we
first
started
backdrop,
I'm
like
we're
going
to
take
all
of
these
things
that
we
learned
through
all
these
usability
studies
that
we
did
in
drupal
and
we're
going
to
apply
them
to
backdrop
and
we're
going
to
document
everything
and
nothing
got
documented.
So
here's
my
recommendation.
Everybody
wants
to
fix
this
problem.
Let's
fix
the
problem.
A
However,
I
think
that
if
we
have
a
required
field
that
fails
a
validation,
that's
in
a
vertical
tab,
we
could
add
not
even
an
error.
Just
like
a
warning
to
watchdog,
that's
like
for
a
better
user
experience,
see
how
whatever
and
link
to
some
page,
where
we
do
actually
document
this,
and
we
can
explain
that.
Like
you
know,
if
a
field
is
going
to
be
required,
somebody
needs
to
be
able
to
see
it
and
either
means
your
vertical
tab
should
be.
A
It
should
be
the
top
vertical
tab,
or
I
don't
know
some
recommendation
to
someone
to
figure
out
how
they
can
make
that
experience
better
and
if
they
don't
want
to
to
see
the
watchdog
or
if
it's
not
their
modular
domain,
control
that
they
can
safely
ignore
it.
But
at
least
we're
then
providing
module
developers
with
links
to
documentation
on
how
to
build
better
user
interfaces
and
we're
still
solving
this
problem
for
all
of
the
users
that
are
stuck
with
the
thing
that
gave
them
the
error
that
they
can't
find
on
the
page.
B
B
All
right,
I
will
create
an
issue
to
do
that,
because
how
I'm
dealing
with
these
problems
now
is
I'm
modifying
the
vertical
tabs
js
and
what
you
just
said.
Jen
seems
like
I
need
to
get
into
the
form
api
level
and
check
for
any
nested
items
within
field
sets
or
vertical
tabs
and
if
they're
and
if
they're
required-
and
they
don't
have
a
default
value,
then
throw
what's
the
errors.
Yeah.
A
Yep
and
then
both
you
still
have
your
hand
up.
Do
you
want
to
say
something.
E
E
Okay,
oh
this
is
the
wrong
window
here,
there's
information.
This
is
not
available
on
field
sets
and
it
is
not
available
on
tabs.
E
So
you
can
change,
you
can
expose
contextual
information
and
have
it
basically
tell
the
users
what
values
are
set
in
those
collapsed
areas.
E
D
We
have
lots
of
usability,
usability
and
accessibility
practices
that
we
follow,
even
though
they
they're
not
a
hundred
percent
right.
There
are
exceptions,
and
so
just
because
we
have
a
general
rule
that
says
you
shouldn't
use
vertical
tabs.
I
don't
I
don't
know
that
anybody's
saying
that
doesn't
mean
you
would
never
ever
ever.
Do
it.
G
A
B
Like
to
unuse
the
reason,
the
reason
why
I
brought
this
up-
and
I
wanted
some
feedback
on
one
thing-
that
I
I
don't
have
a
good
idea
on
how
to
solve.
I
need
some
feedback,
so
I'll
explain
the
situation,
real,
quick
I'll,
explain
what
I
thought
and
then
you
just
tell
me
yes,
no
or
go
in
the
issue
and
say
what
it
is.
So
here's
the
the
use
case,
which
robert
actually
gave
me
the
idea
for,
if
there's
multiple
tabs,
that
fail
validation,
only
one
can
be
highlighted
or
focused
right.
B
So
you
you
give
the
the
user
a
bunch
of
errors
at
the
top
validation
errors
say
some
of
them
refer
to
actual
visible
elements
that
are
outside
the
vertical
tabs
and
then
there
may
be
several
within
the
vertical
tabs.
The
user
goes
through.
The
form
sees
the
ones
that
are
outside
the
vertical
tabs,
correct
these
things
and
they
see
the
focus
tab,
so
they
fix
that
there
they
don't
know
anything
else,
because
we
don't
indicate
anything
else
and
they
hit
the
the
submit
button
again
now
another
error
comes
up
a
validation
error.
B
Everything
is
fixed
besides
the
rest
of
the
tabs,
so
the
the
person
gets
into
a
loop
where
they
need
to
iterate
through
the
rest
of
the
vehicle
tabs,
and
my
idea
was
to
highlight
those
vertical
tabs
that
need
attention
in
red.
I
can't
figure
any
other
solution
like
see
how
it's
blue
now
make
it
red,
or
something
like
that.
If
you
have
any
better
ideas,
just
please
let
me
know
so
that
we
can.
We
can
indicate
all
tabs
that
have
all
vertical
tabs
that
have
issues.
B
That's
that
was
the
goal,
and
since
we,
since
we've
gone
beyond
the
the
the
limit,
rd
piano,
is
asked
for
some
feedback
in
the
loop
with
regards
to
issue
54
99.
A
B
A
C
Sure
so
there
are
backdrop
modules
that
require
modules
that
only
exist
in
backdrop,
the
classic
or
prototype
case
being
entity
plus
also
entity
ui,
and
there
can
be
others,
and
so
normally,
when
you
upgrade
a
drupal
site,
the
upgrade
process
looks
to
see
if
the
backdrop
modules
have
all
of
their
required
modules
enabled
and
since
entity
plus
didn't
exist
in
drupal.
It's
not
listed
as
enabled
in
the
system
table
and
the
upgrader
says.
C
Okay,
I'm
going
to
disable
that
module,
because
one
of
its
dependencies
is
is
missing
and
then
cascade,
disabling,
all
of
the
sub
modules
and
so
forth.
C
And
in
the
case
of
my
favorite
uber
cart,
which
has
like
20
sub
modules.
You
end
up
with
a
whole
slew
of
your
modules,
disabled
and
therefore
not
upgraded,
and
it's
very
confusing
to
people
and
the
solution
we
came
up
with
for
ubercard
and
rules
was
to
create
what
we
called
stub
modules,
empty,
drupal
modules
of
the
same
name
that
before
you
did
your
upgrade,
you
turned
them
on
and
then
ran
your
upgrade
and
everything
worked
beautifully
and
what
this
issue
is
is
looking
at
is
saying.
C
Let's,
in
an
earlier
phase
of
the
catch
early
enough
in
the
upgrade
look
for
backdrop,
only
modules
that
are
required
and
that
exist
in
the
code
base
that
are
required
by
enabled
backdrop
modules
and
that
exist
in
the
code
base
and
if
they
do
exist
in
the
code
base,
we'll
assume
they
were
intended
to
be
enabled
and
we'll
turn
and
we'll
enable
that
or
we'll
mark
them,
as
enabled
in
the
system
table,
so
that
then
the
upgrade
process
can
run
and
run
all
the
up,
update
hooks
for
those
modules
and
for
everything
downstream
and
the
dependencies.
C
And
that's
basically
the
issue
that
this
is
addressing.
And
the
question
I
guess
is,
do
and
I
see
our
alejandro's
here.
So
maybe
you
can
comment
on
some
of
the
subtleties
and
issues
that
came
up
as
we
started
digging
into
this.
K
Yeah,
I'm
sorry.
I
have
only
like
a
couple
minutes
before
I
had
to
go,
but
I
think
that
summary
was
great
robert,
and
so
the
issue
is
that
a
lot
of
modules
in
drupal
depended
on
on
the
entity,
api
module,
and
so
the
name
of
that
module
has
changed
in
backdrop,
that's
entity
plus
and
entity.
K
So
the
idea
is
that
when
you
are
migrating
a
a
site
to
backdrop-
and
you
have
like
rules,
for
example,
like
robert
said,
you
know
the
even
if
you
have
entity
plus
in
the
code
base,
it
will
not
be
enabled
and
therefore
rules
will
not
be
enabled
and
all
other
modules
are
dependent
on
that,
so
I'm
working
on
on
enabling
those
automatically
entity
plus
specifically
in
the
meantime,
I
also
found
that
there
are
a
few
modules
that
are
required
by
the
standard
installation
in
backdrop
that
were
not
part
of
the
standard
install
in
in
drupal.
K
For
example,
you
know
the
email
and
link
those
things
are
standard
in
backdrop
and
therefore,
when
you're
migrating,
those
will
not
be
enabled,
basically
they
will
be
disabled
and
that
the
most
serious
one
was
ins.
I
can't
remember
what
it's
called,
but
it's
a
module
that
allows
you
to
install
new
modules.
F
K
Installer
module,
so
that's
not
gonna,
be
enabled
by
default
when,
when
you
migrate,
ck
editor
is
another
one.
So
for
some
of
those
modules
you
know
there
were
a
contrib
module
in
drupal
7..
If
you
had
that
country
module
enabled
like
link
or
email,
then
that's
going
to
be
enabled
in
backdrop,
but
if
you're
just
migrating
just
a
very
plain
sight
from
drupal
there's
a
number
of
modules
that
will
not
be
enabled.
K
So
the
question
is
the
pr
I
provided
enables
those
things
automatically,
but
I
think
maybe
joseph
or
someone
else
was
no
doug
willmott
was
suggesting
that
we
should
ask
the
user
whether
to
enable
those
or
not
and
think
greg.
You
also
said
something
about.
B
I
had
yeah,
I
had
other
concerns,
but
I
think
I've
changed
my
mind.
I'm
not
sure
if
I
posted
on
the
comment,
because
people
upgrading
from
drupal
7
and
keeping
the
the
standard
destination
profile,
I'm
assuming
that
they're
expecting
the
features
that
we
advertise
to
be
there
right.
What
this
is
doing
is
the
opposite,
so
I
think
that
we
shouldn't
ask,
but
we
should
inform
at
the
end
that
hey
we
enable
these
modules.
Now
these
are
new
features,
so
I
didn't
get
a
chance.
B
K
Yeah,
all
right,
so
you
know
I'll
be
working
a
little
bit
this
weekend
on
that
pr,
and
so
I
appreciate
if
greg-
and
you
know
robert,
if
you,
if
you
can
take
a
look
and
yes.
A
A
real
problem
sure
I
just
want
to
say:
I
have
run
into
this
problem
too,
and
I
think
this
is
great.
I
think-
and
I
haven't
done
this
yet,
but
I'm
just
gonna
throw
it
out
there,
because
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
have
tried
this
yet
that
there
is
some
hook
that
allows
you
to
like
change
the
order
in
which
updates
are
run.
B
A
C
Yeah
yeah,
the
problem
is
that
that
so
I've
used
that
issue
in
places
to
to
stick
my
update
hook
earlier
than
than
others,
but
that
is
still
too
late
in
this
process,
because
everything's
already
disabled
but
yeah
because
the
yeah
it's
it's
already
made
a
list
of
all
of
the
updates
and
if
the
module
wasn't
enabled
it's
not
included
yeah.
A
D
All
right,
justin,
I
think,
wanted
to
check
in
with
us
on
cvcrm,
but
we
can
end
the
meeting.
Maybe
or
should
we
keep
this
from
the
meeting.