Better message for missing module files

I have come across messages like this

enough times for it to annoy me enough to want to submit a patch along the lines of

diff --git a/src/civicrm/civicrm/CRM/Utils/Hook.php b/src/civicrm/civicrm/CRM/Utils/Hook.php
index 656238f..b169f79 100644
--- a/src/civicrm/civicrm/CRM/Utils/Hook.php
+++ b/src/civicrm/civicrm/CRM/Utils/Hook.php
@@ -329,8 +329,11 @@ abstract class CRM_Utils_Hook {
     foreach ($civiModules as $civiModule) {
       if (!file_exists($civiModule['filePath'])) {
         CRM_Core_Session::setStatus(
-          ts('Error loading module file (%1). Please restore the file or disable the module.',
-            [1 => $civiModule['filePath']]),
+          ts("Error loading file '%1' for module '%2'. Please restore the file or disable the module.",
+            [
+              1 => $civiModule['filePath'],
+              2 => $civiModule['prefix'],
+            ]),
           ts('Warning'), 'error');
         continue;
       }

I'm testing the patch on a client site as we speak. Thought I would create this issue as a placeholder.

added git:civicrm-core ~88 triaged labels

As discussed with Michael, I'm wondering whether this message should be displayed at all. It feels like the wrong place to show this error. I think the status check is a better place to check whether the files are present for each extension and this sort of message should be shown to admin users only. I don't think this message should be shown to the end user.

Also we should be consistent in our use of language. In CivICRM the extensions are called 'extensions' not 'modules'!

Hi,

Thank you for raising an issue to help improve CiviCRM. As you may know, this issue has not had any activity for quite some time, so we have closed it.

We would like you to help us to determine if this issue should be re-opened:

• If this issue was reporting a bug, can you attempt to reproduce it on a latest version of CiviCRM?
• If this issue was proposing a new feature, can you verify if the feature proposal is still relevant? Did it get the concept-approved label? Have other people also shown interest? Could it be implemented as an extension?

If the answer to either question is yes, please feel free to comment or re-open the issue. Please also consider:

• Is it something that you could help implement, either by sending a patch or hiring someone who can?
• Would you be willing to fund the work, either through a CiviCRM partner, or the Core Team?

Thank you for your help and contributions to CiviCRM.

P.S. This is an automated message, see infra/gitlab issue 20. We understand that automatic responses are annoying, but given the number of open issues as the project evolves, we need a bit of help to triage and prioritise the most relevant issues.

closed