@GeraintEdwards Please fix code style errors as reported by drone https://ci.joomla.org/joomla/joomla-cms/32942/1/2

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 1913597

Tested successfully with 3.10-dev from Nightly Build 9 May.

Test environment: Wampserver 3.2.2 MySQL 8.0.19 PHP 7.4.5

@toivo How can you give a good test result if code style tests (PHPCS) fail in drone?

Please add width style to <th> so the columns align.

@richard67 the drone tests dont show up in the issue tracker

Could you please try to write shorter messages. They are very hard to understand.

@brianteeman Do you mean the explanatory comments under the headings should be shorter?

The idea is to put enough detail to explain what the category of results mean so that there is less reliance on documentation. Its important that users understand the importance of this output otherwise we may get users performing bad upgrades and Joomla being blamed.

I'm very open to different wording or direct links to relevant documentation.

Any specific ideas?

Research has proven that the more text you write then the less people read.

@brianteeman I can make a couple of the messages 'context sensitive' e.g. only show them if the relevant situation arises e.g. Joomla 3.x update available that isn't available in Joomla 4.x .

@Quy I agree about aligning the column widths (subject to maintaining some sort of good behaviour on different sized screens).

What I'm most interested in. initially. is people's reaction to this alternative presentation of the information and if its is likely to help users understand the upgrade process better and reduce the risks of broken sites when Joomla is upgraded. If its seen as a good idea/approach then it can be polished up a bit more.??

I have been testing this for a couple of weeks. I like how it's organised by tag and the colour of the bars. It makes more sense to the user than the mixed up ordering of the tags in the existing version of pre-update check.

Couple of typos - the same for each description under the red bars. "if" should be "is." Maybe it doesn't matter though...

Thoughts:

1. The second red bar I think should be gray - same as the missing compatibility tag is in the current version of pre-update check since a number of them will migrate on the one click to 4. To me red means NO and some of these are definitely YES.

2. The titles in the bars I think should be clearer and ditch the description below. Suggestions:

Green - Yes, tagged as compatible with Joomla 4.
Yellow/Orange - May need an update to be compatible. Update or check with developer.
Red - No compatiblity with Joomla 4. Check with developer on migration path.
Gray/Second Red - Missing compatibility tag. Check with developer on migration path.

3. We can put the deeper descriptions and more explanation in the doc (docs.joomla.org/Pre-Update_Check). Note that is a work in progress at this moment.

4. Add to the Notice at the bottom:

Pre-Update Check Documentation (link to docs.joomla.org/Pre-Update_Check)
Dev Resources: Deploying an Update Server (https://docs.joomla.org/Deploying_an_Update_Server), Joomla Update System Requirement (https://extensions.joomla.org/support/knowledgebase/submission-requirements/joomla-update-system-requirement/), and Extension Manager Update (https://docs.joomla.org/Help39:Extensions_Extension_Manager_Update)

I will wait to test until the issue Richard is talking about is resolved. However I have been testing for some time. I think this version will make more sense to more users and be easier to understand - with a few changes for more clarity.

@bayareajenn Code style issue is solved. Or did you mean something else?

@bayareajenn Code style issue is solved. Or did you mean something else?

No, that's what I meant. I don't really know how to read github very well. Getting better. So ok. I'll test. Thanks Richard.

@richard67 I did not check the code in diff other than check that it did not have any SQL statements.

@GeraintEdwards The Extensions Pre-Update Check report looks good and I strongly believe it will assist users and get them to update or uninstall out-of-date extensions before upgrading Joomla. It will make the task of volunteers in the Joomla! Forum easier by spelling out extension by extension if they are compatible. Any chance of getting at least a summary report in BBCode, similar to what we get from the Forum Post Assitant (FPA)?

Note to self: study the documentation and make one of my own 3.x test extensions upgradeable.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 6ec5735

Works fine. See other comment for suggestions on clarifying it more. :)

Is it worth me spending more time on this?

Do people feel this approach adds value?

In which case I would make some of the messages context sensitive (i.e. only display relevant warnings) and align the columns in the tables.

Do people feel this approach adds value?

yes for me

@Quy I have now set column widths so that the columns all line up

@brianteeman I have make a couple of the warning messages context sensitive - i.e. they only appear when they are relevant.

@adj9 would you like to test this one ?

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 6615f87


Test phases:

• Installed all packages
• Upgrade from Custom URL to version 3.10
• Checking for updates
• Application of PR

Results (3.9->4.0)
For minimal server requirements I have no problem, I use PHP and MySQL.
Pre-Check phases:

• Extensions Probably Compatible, passed
• Extensions Requiring Upgrades to be Compatible, is Orange
• Update Server Offers No Compatible Version, there is no compatibility
• Joomla Update System Not Supported, there is no compatibility

I'm not continuing the migration to J! 4.

As for the graphics, so far it is very minimal. I find it suitable to understand if the versions installed in the Joommla! environment are compatible with the migration version. With so many extensions installed it becomes more complicated because there is a lot of information.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 6615f87

rtc

Should I make the equivalent changes as a PR for Joomla 4.0?

p.s. Looks like one of the tests failed and may just need rerunning.

Should I make the equivalent changes as a PR for Joomla 4.0?

I have added this PR to my review list and I will get back to you soon. When merged this will be merged up to 4.x too so right now there is no 4.0 PR required.

p.s. Looks like one of the tests failed and may just need rerunning.

Seems this is not realted to this PR.

I have added this PR to my review list and I will get back to you soon. When merged this will be merged up to 4.x too so right now there is no 4.0 PR required.

It won't merge into Joomla 4.0 easily so I'm happy to help with changes required to get it working in J4. I'll watch for you review - thanks

Ok did round of tests here. Here are some issues i found as well as some suggestions

Bugs

Seems I found an issue introduced here go to com_joomlaupdate -> try to navigate to "extensions -> manage -> install" -> works -> apply this patch see. It seems als sub menus are broken there:

Seems we also have an JS error when 0 extensions are installed:

Suggestions

Install https://github.com/zero-24/plg_fields_privacycheckbox/releases/tag/1.0.4
This extension is only comatible with 3.x but there is a 4.x version all fine. The problem is that this is the only version installed but you still get this:

So the suggestion is to hide the sections where no extension is in so it does not send a confusing message on the first look ;)

I have just installed the demo extensions

Seems this message is dublicated now? I would suggest to remove the notice from the bottom.

I have a big screen (32") but still there is no end at the right side ;)

Can we add a bit padding as we have it on the left site to that table?

I will review and send some suggestions for the language keys too so we direct people and extension devs to dedicated docs.

Thanks for your work on this this already is a great step into the right direction @GeraintEdwards ?

Here is the PR for the suggested changes: GeraintEdwards#1 this already includes the change to the joomla loader and the removal of the additional notice message.

@zero-24
Hi Tobias
I've made almost all your suggested changes - I've left the heading capitalisation awaiting input from Brian (@brianteeman)
thanks
Geraint

That looks great! Thanks @GeraintEdwards (and sorry that it took a week to come back to this)

I would be great to get another final test here maybe @alikon @adj9 @bayareajenn @toivo can give the latest code changes another try?

As for the headings it would be great to get some feedback from @brianteeman but this can also be changed when required in a later PR.

Will check this morning - thanks for the reminder

1. Sorry but I have no idea at all what these two columns are showing me

Upgrade Compatible Version | Currently Compatible Version

2. Joomla Update System is Not Supported

Why does this text contain a link to how to setup an update server? That is not relevant to a user trying to update their site

The extension developer is not currently offering any information about extension compatibility with different versions of Joomla.

3. Extensions Requiring Upgrades to be Compatible
   Does that mean I should update them now before I update Joomla? Or that I will have to make a note of them and update them after I have done the update

4. These are hard to understand and not consistent in language or tone with each other

Extensions Probably Compatible
Extensions Requiring Upgrades to be Compatible
Update Server Offers No Compatible Version
Joomla Update System is Not Supported

5. Update or Upgrade
   Are we doing an update or an upgrade? Both words are used interchangeably - we should only use one

Why does this text contain a link to how to setup an update server? That is not relevant to a user trying to update their site

Before there was a doc page dedicated to the pre-update check, I wanted a link to go somewhere so that extension devs could properly tag their extensions. This is no longer a good idea as the information can be obtained from docs.joomla.org/Pre-Update_Check. @GeraintEdwards will you please link to /Pre-Update_Check.

When it comes to update vs. upgrade, the component was named Pre-Update Check before I ever saw it. The "upgrade/update" vs. "migration" was a huge discussion in the "update working group" during the 2.5 to 3.x migration time (2014). People wanted to minimize the mini-migration by using "update." I was against this, thus why the docs say "mini-migration" and not "update" or "upgrade." This is a mini-migration. So personally, I'd rather the entire component be called "pre-migration check." But I've given up on caring about that.

@GeraintEdwards I've already expressed my thoughts on wording changes and colours a number of times. I'll paste below what I think again.

Thoughts:

1. The second red bar I think should be gray - same as the missing compatibility tag is in the current version of pre-update check since a number of them will migrate on the one click to 4. To me red means NO and some of these are definitely YES.

2. The titles in the bars I think should be clearer and ditch the description below. Suggestions:

Green - Yes, tagged as compatible with Joomla 4.
Yellow/Orange - May need an update to be compatible. Update or check with developer.
Red - No compatiblity with Joomla 4. Check with developer on migration path.
Gray/Second Red - Missing compatibility tag. Check with developer on migration path.

1. We can put the deeper descriptions and more explanation in the doc (docs.joomla.org/Pre-Update_Check). Note that is a work in progress at this moment.

2. Add to the Notice at the bottom:

Pre-Update Check Documentation (link to docs.joomla.org/Pre-Update_Check)
Dev Resources: Deploying an Update Server (https://docs.joomla.org/Deploying_an_Update_Server), Joomla Update System Requirement (https://extensions.joomla.org/support/knowledgebase/submission-requirements/joomla-update-system-requirement/), and Extension Manager Update (https://docs.joomla.org/Help39:Extensions_Extension_Manager_Update)

Those have been my suggestions from the beginning of testing this. Whatever y'all decide I'll go with. I'll just try and make it make sense in the docs after y'all decide what you want it to say.

@brianteeman

1. Sorry but I have no idea at all what these two columns are showing me

Upgrade Compatible Version | Currently Compatible Version
The columns show versions of the extensions that are compatible with the Joomla version you want to upgrade to and versions that are compatible with your current version of Joomla (since your currently installed version of an extension may or may not be the most up to date).

Not easy to explain in a 2-3 word heading/

1. Joomla Update System is Not Supported

Why does this text contain a link to how to setup an update server? That is not relevant to a user trying to update their site

I agree with @bayareajenn that a link to the documentation page would be best overall. I think Tobias' idea was to provider a pointer for developers here.

The extension developer is not currently offering any information about extension compatibility with different versions of Joomla.

1. Extensions Requiring Upgrades to be Compatible
   Does that mean I should update them now before I update Joomla? Or that I will have to make a note of them and update them after I have done the update

The former - if you don't upgrade your newly upgraded version of Joomla may not work at all. Many types of plugins could cause the upgraded site to be inaccessible or leave you unable to login.

2. These are hard to understand and not consistent in language or tone with each other

Extensions Probably Compatible
Extensions Requiring Upgrades to be Compatible
Update Server Offers No Compatible Version
Joomla Update System is Not Supported

They are descriptions of the different combination of situations you could have. The last 2 are basically 2 different types of "We don't know if there is a compatible version" but I think we need to maintain a distinction.

We also can't make 'bold' statements like 'Extensions Compatible' without a caveat of some sort.

I was hoping that the 'clarification wording under each heading would make their meaning a bit more clear.

3rd heading could express something more like 'No Compatible Version Currently Available' and explain about update server underneath

4th could then read 'No Compatibility Information Available' - again with explanation about not supporting Joomla update server.

@bayareajenn

Green - Yes, tagged as compatible with Joomla 4.
Yellow/Orange - May need an update to be compatible. Update or check with developer.

It quite possible that upgrading Joomla without upgrading the extension could lock you out of your site - so I think 'may need and update' is a bit too weak.

Red - No compatiblity with Joomla 4. Check with developer on migration path.
Gray/Second Red - Missing compatibility tag. Check with developer on migration path.

As a developer when I first saw 'missing compatibility tag' I had no idea what that meant and was what got me started on these tweaks in the first place. I think its too technical a phrase for most people.

Again is 'migration path' a bit technical and and also the use of the word 'migration' may scare people with Joomla 1.5 experience. I think we use the explanatory 'sub-heading' to elaborate on what the user should do and point them to the documentation.

Any suggestions?

1. Update or Upgrade
   Are we doing an update or an upgrade? Both words are used interchangeably - we should only use one

A quick scan of core language files shows update is used about 90% of the time and upgrade 10%

I'm happy to change these words - personally I prefer upgrade to update but its easier to go with the existing flow ;)'

Think like a user not a developer. Why am I on this page? To update joomla.

This check should provide me with anything I should know before I do the update. Version numbers are meaningless to me. The more complicated this is the more unlikely that people will either

1. not read any of it
2. be too scared to do the update

So just because the site has to find all this information doesn't mean I need to see it. I would simply present basic information as in the screenshot below. Or even add the link to the developer site

Think like a user not a developer. Why am I on this page? To update joomla.

Its not just developers that like to have as much information as possible ;)

But I also think its useful for developers to see the version information in this context to flag where there are issues with update servers.

What about a 'show more' type link to reveal more detailed information via a css slider?

This check should provide me with anything I should know before I do the update. Version numbers are meaningless to me. The more complicated this is the more unlikely that people will either

1. not read any of it

2. be too scared to do the update

So just because the site has to find all this information doesn't mean I need to see it. I would simply present basic information as in the screenshot below. Or even add the link to the developer site

In general I agree but there are a couple of catches - for example:

1. Some extensions need to be upgraded before you upgrade to J4
2. Some extensions need to be upgraded after you upgrade to J4 since they are not compatible with J3.x

We could extract this distinction from the data in my 2 columns and present it like you suggest with a 4th option 'Upgrade Required After Upgrading Joomla'

Links to extension developer sites and update details would be feasible and a good idea.

I think its worth flagging to users where they have extensions which don't support the update server - users should be 'discouraged' from using these extensions so putting them in the 'sin bin' here is a good chance to prompt people to do a cleanout?

Finally I think we do need to make sure that users understand we are not guaranteeing compatibility of extensions - so a suitable disclaimer is important

We could extract this distinction from the data in my 2 columns and present it like you suggest with a 4th option 'Upgrade Required After Upgrading Joomla'

It's not needed. As soon as they complete the jooml update they will get that information

I think its worth flagging to users where they have extensions which don't support the update server

They are flagged in the Information unavailable section

Finally I think we do need to make sure that users understand we are not guaranteeing compatibility of extensions - so a suitable disclaimer is important

The disclaimer is already on the page

The migration docs will tell them that the pre-update check is an overview only. They need to check and assess each extension before hitting the button to 4.x....and it tells them how to do that.

@brianteeman

Some extensions need to be upgraded after you upgrade to J4 since they are not compatible with J3.x

I should have worded this differently. Lets take an extension at v1.1 in J3 and v2.0 is released for J4 but v2.0 is not compatible with J3 and they MUST upgrade the extension after upgrading Joomla. The user needs to be told an update is available so they know can upgrade Joomla but we need to make the distinction that they will need to upgrade the extension later???

It may be an academic point since most developers will have a 'transition' version of their extension but I don't know this for certain.

As soon as they update joomla it will trigger the extension update check and they will be notified then

@brianteeman

As soon as they update joomla it will trigger the extension update check and they will be notified then

True, but it would be listed under the 'update required' heading and could lead people to spend time trying to perform an upgrade from J3.x that they cannot do leading to support questions and confusion.

Its not going to happen very often - if I were to guess maybe 5% of sites so most people wouldn't even see the output block since empty result blocks are not shown.

I'll work up an alternative output taking on board your ideas then we can compare and contrast?

@brianteeman
Can you take a look at the revised version? I know it will fail on code styling - need to get people's views of this version compared to the earlier version before I polish up the code.
thanks

Screenshots so you get a quick impression

I'm a bit confused (as always) why the three different screenshots

ok worked it out - pressing the + reveals the version numbers

Not sure about that from a UI perspective as thats not a design pattern we use anywhere else and it doesnt solve the problem of understanding what the columns are.

For me the 2 columns are more than enough

My 2'6

@bayareajenn @zero-24 @toivo @alikon
What does everyone else think of the merits of the 2 approaches?

Imho, versions information should always be displayed. Headers can be modified if confusing.

I think this has everything now. It is concise for those who are put off by the detail, it has the details so you can find the problem and know what to solve. It also helps the developers who are building their packages to see if and why they fail.

Not sure about that from a UI perspective as that's not a design pattern we use anywhere else and it doesn't solve the problem of understanding what the columns are.

This is a one-off component that is needed as a migration tool. Its not a design pattern we often repeat

From my point of view: "No updates required" should be below all other lists. I'm not more interested in things that I don't have to do than in things I have to do. If "No updates required" becomes a long list you have to scroll down a lot before you see the imp0ortant entries.

From my point of view: "No updates required" should be below all other lists. I'm not more interested in things that I don't have to do than in things I have to do. If "No updates required" becomes a long list you have to scroll down a lot before you see the imp0ortant entries.

I agree.

Rather than tweaking the code here is a screenshot of the results reordered and also with a short explanation and link to the docs as suggested by @bayareajenn

Also instead of [+] we could use [More Detail]/[Less Detail] toggle headings or a [down chevron icon]

Just committed what I hope will be the final version (pending more/less discussion).

One tiny change and then its perfect for me

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b3e691a

I don't seem to be able to test it via Patch Tester. But thanks for adding a link to the docs @GeraintEdwards . Note, it should be pre-update check rather than pre-update documentation just to be consistent with the title of the doc but I don't care as long as there's a link where more can be explained if needed.

I don't seem to be able to test it via Patch Tester. But thanks for adding a link to the docs @GeraintEdwards . Note, it should be pre-update check rather than pre-update documentation just to be consistent with the title of the doc but I don't care as long as there's a link where more can be explained if needed.

So the link text would be 'pre-update check documentation' instead of just 'pre-update documentation' ?

So the link text would be 'pre-update check documentation' instead of just 'pre-update documentation' ?

Yes, sir. The doc is called Pre-Update Check so I think those are the words that should link to https://docs.joomla.org/Pre-Update_Check.

So the link text would be 'pre-update check documentation' instead of just 'pre-update documentation' ?

Yes, sir. The doc is called Pre-Update Check so I think those are the words that should link to https://docs.joomla.org/Pre-Update_Check.
Your wish is my command :)

Thanks for all your work on this @GeraintEdwards

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b3e691a

Thanks for all involved in here and a special thanks to @GeraintEdwards ?
Will merge this one here for now. Lets try to get some feedback from the wider community on this one too so we can improve this where needed.