@softforge can you take a look into the language string?

Made multiple comments inline in the code. Mainly due to the use of "extensions" when it should be "components"

Also the following

1. If I am only using com_content why should I be told about com_newsfeeds etc
2. I do not understand the advice in the second sentence of the notice. Check what. Check that its enabled first? Check that if I enable it the urls are still valid? If they're not valid what do I do. Fix them now before upgrade or later. I have 30,000 articles on my site am I supposed to check them all?

@zero-24
See Instructions: Question: I think you need this update Server?: https://update.joomla.org/core/test/310to4_list.xml

Also I am not convinced this test is of any use.

Neither of my two testing sites that were NOT using modern routing have had any issues when upgrading to joomla 4. All the menu links work correctly as before. The only link that has changed is the internal link on a readmore blog item but that doesnt stop the site from working and the notice here wouldnt have any impact either.

Unless I am missing something this is useless and just creates FUD about upgrading

This is not a php or a database setting
This is not a requirement either

I have tested this item ? unsuccessfully on 7d9d025

This and the other PR should be closed and re-evaluated. There is ZERO reason for either PR.

Not withstanding the code issues the concept of both PR is wrong!! They only succeed in spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the upgrade process.

I can't believe you are even remotely thinking about such a change after the final release candidate.

I have tested this item ? unsuccessfully on 8d8d3dd

Fine for me I still stand by the concept that the pre-upgrade check should display such information as they can be very relevant to the users who want to upgrade but I also get the point of adding it that late.

Imho, this PR makes no sense.
There is no point telling the user to change a setting when upgrading would do the exakt same thing anyway. You could add a notice to the update view if you really want - but I think even that is useless. It just tells the user URLs may break but no way how he could solve it (and there is really no way to solve it beside manually redirecting).
Add it to the doc page about possible B/C breaks (if not already there) because that is the place where such things should be written.

Also, it would not support 3d party extensions. So it's a no-go anyway.

Beside that, if we really wanted to help users and make the move to the modern router as painless as possible, we should have added an automatic redirect feature back then along with the new router. Then this would make sense. You could then enable modern routing and wait till search engines updated the links and then update. But now you don't gain anything. It's the same if you enable the router in J3 or just update to J4.

There is no point telling the user to change a setting when upgrading would do the exakt same thing anyway. You could add a notice to the update view if you really want - but I think even that is useless. It just tells the user URLs may break but no way how he could solve it (and there is really no way to solve it beside manually redirecting).

But better tell them other than just silently change something in the background and break the URLs for them?

Add it to the doc page about possible B/C breaks (if not already there) because that is the place where such things should be written.

Thats for developers right? So when (if not already done) It should be added to the migration doc or is it that what you mean?

Beside that, if we really wanted to help users and make the move to the modern router as painless as possible, we should have added an automatic redirect feature back then along with the new router. Then this would make sense. You could then enable modern routing and wait till search engines updated the links and then update. But now you don't gain anything. It's the same if you enable the router in J3 or just update to J4.

Such a feature is beyond the scope of this PR. The Idea would be "make sure with thatever steps are nessesary that modern routing works in 3.10 wherether thats changing the setting and running an bot to make sure all links are updated or collected to be redirected with com_redirect or something" Than start the upgrade where the router stuff is not an issue anymore.

Also, it would not support 3d party extensions. So it's a no-go anyway.

Do you have an idea to support 3rd party extensions? Would make sense to add them for sure.

sorry guys but it's really impressive how you would like to let the majority of our user base run into an open knife.

It's not about scaring the user about a change in the url schema it's about to inform the user about this change and the benefits. Sadly J3 and j4 has no way to simulate and to redirect the old schema to the new one mainly because nobody invested time into a plugin that can do this. This is not a big problem for the majority of our user base because they don't know it, don't care or are not effected and I would expect google recovers within a couple of days. But the people like brian with 30k articles which maybe includes cross links that maybe are broken should be informed before they upgrade.

Sure the text is bad, and it should redirect the user to documentation explaining what's happening and what he/she can do. It's also ok that it's only optional and of course we can't check 3rd party components but that's part of the "is component compatible with j4".

But the people like brian with 30k articles which maybe includes cross links that maybe are broken should be informed before they upgrade.

I built the site correctly so there is no problem with any links.

@Bakual is correct in everything he says.

This PR serves no purpose. The correct place to note this router change is in the documentation

It's not about scaring the user about a change in the url schema it's about to inform the user about this change and the benefit

If that is the reason for the pr then it completely fails in achieving those objectives

Ok so what can be done to improve the messaging to our users and make it more clear what have to be checked upfront, besides adding infos to the docs.

I built the site correctly so there is no problem with any links.

You really think that's not a problem and "everyone" do it right?

Ok so what can be done to improve the messaging to our users and make it more clear what have to be checked upfront, besides adding infos to the docs.

Do you have a big warning when you enable modern routing in j3? No it is just a tooltip.
Have there been a million messages saying enabling modern routing broke their site in J3? No

You really think that's not a problem and "everyone" do it right?

On a site with 30k articles you are more likely to do it right and use the joomla tools to create a link than to manually paste a link.

But its really not the point. This PR does nothing to help a user

2. I do not understand the advice in the second sentence of the notice. Check what. Check that its enabled first? Check that if I enable it the urls are still valid? If they're not valid what do I do. Fix them now before upgrade or later. I have 30,000 articles on my site am I supposed to check them all?

Do you have a big warning when you enable modern routing in j3? No it is just a tooltip.
Have there been a million messages saying enabling modern routing broke their site in J3? No

How many people are using modern routing in 3.x? ?️

But its really not the point. This PR does nothing to help a user

Agree It should be a warning pointing to more docs or the upgrade docs itsef right?

Thats for developers right? So when (if not already done) It should be added to the migration doc or is it that what you mean?

Yeah, better the migration one. The one for the users, not the devs ??

Do you have an idea to support 3rd party extensions? Would make sense to add them for sure.

It would need a hook where the 3rd party can respond to. But it's to late for such.

Yeah, better the migration one. The one for the users, not the devs ??

Good point noted above

Closing this for now.