Define permissions in the correct format (with `label` and `description`)

[jensschuppe]

The current method of defining permissions is deprecated in CiviCRM 5.71.

[bjendres]

@jensschuppe thanks. Is this compatible with CiviCRM 5.43 or does the minimum version have to be adjusted?

[jensschuppe]

This should be compatible with 5.43 (and older, even with 4.7), see https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/blob/5.43/CRM/Core/Permission/Base.php#L391-L416 for the evaluating code in this version.

The original code allowed both, a string label, or an array with label as first and description as second element. The array format is now required, with associative keys (label and description). If defined in that order, the code is backwards-compatible with old versions.

Support for 5.43 ended in November 2021, though, so I don't think any new versions of CiviSEPA have to be compatible. I see, you just asked because of the minimum version in the info.xml.

[bjendres]

This should be compatible with 5.43 (and older, even with 4.7

Great, thanks.

~Support for 5.43 ended in November 2021, though, so I don't think any new versions of CiviSEPA have to be compatible.~ I see, you just asked because of the minimum version in the info.xml.

For some context: There are still organisations using even older CiviCRM versions, mostly the really large organisations. For those, upgrading CiviCRM is >3 months of work, and we should really try to maintain support for older versions until there's a really good reason not to.

[bjendres]

@jensschuppe would you backport this to 1.9.x?

[jensschuppe]

@jensschuppe would you backport this to 1.9.x?

Yes, that would be useful, as 1.10.x is not even in beta yet. So this will have to be merged into master for 1.10.x and cherry-picked to 1.9.x.

[bjendres]

Merged to master, thanks.

@jensschuppe Please let me know once it's been tested in a real-life scenario, and I'll create a 1.10-alpha5 and cherry-pick it for an 1.9.2.

[jensschuppe]

"Testing" would only involve checking that the permissions are still registered, which I can confirm for a local Drupal environment.

[bjendres]

"Testing" would only involve checking that the permissions are still registered, which I can confirm for a local Drupal environment.

Ok, thanks. So should we wait for ~1 week to see if there's issues, or release in 1.9.2 asap?

[jensschuppe]

I don't think anyone will actually use the master branch, so this won't get any more review. Let's just release a new version with it.

[pminf]

Hey, we don't use master and would be happy if you release a patch version for 1.9.x. It seems that 1.10.x is still some time away.

[bjendres]

It seems that 1.10.x is still some time away.

I don't think so, it's at 1.10-beta5

Hey, we ... would be happy if you release a patch version for 1.9.x.

I'm releasing a 1.9.2 for you :)

[francescbassas]

I can see 1.9.2 here https://github.com/Project60/org.project60.sepa/releases/tag/1.9.2 but not in https://civicrm.org/extensions/civisepa-sepa-direct-debit-extension. Is there anything left to do?

[bjendres]

Is there anything left to do?

Yes, it generates release drafts in the extension directory, that I have to manually publish. Unfortunately that takes some hours, so I don't want to wait - and then I sometimes forget - sorry.

Anyway, they should be up now.

[francescbassas]

Thanks!!