Problem/Motivation
We special cased workspaces module in system_requirements() for 8.8 updates being removed. This is irrelevant for the 9 to 10 update.
Steps to reproduce
Proposed resolution
Remaining tasks
User interface changes
API changes
Data model changes
Release notes snippet
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #19 | interdiff.3290808.16-19.txt | 1.16 KB | longwave |
| #19 | 3290808-19.patch | 4.18 KB | longwave |
| #16 | interdiff.3290808.6-16.txt | 2.39 KB | longwave |
| #16 | 3290808-16.patch | 3.9 KB | longwave |
| #6 | interdiff_3-6.txt | 1.08 KB | spokje |
Comments
Comment #2
catchComment #3
catchError message is actually wrong now so switching to a bug.
Comment #6
spokjeNow with extra less test failures.
Comment #7
spokjeComment #8
lendudeLooks good, slack feedback was addressed in #3 ;)
Comment #9
longwaveShould this be 9.4.0 given #3290810: Remove updates added prior to 9.4.0 (9.4.4 for ckeditor) and add 9.4.0 database dumps?
Comment #10
spokjeValid point, but shouldn't that be handled in #3290810: Remove updates added prior to 9.4.0 (9.4.4 for ckeditor) and add 9.4.0 database dumps?
Comment #11
longwaveAhh I forgot we did #3261486: Remove core updates added prior to 9.3.0 and adjust test coverage already, I guess let's just make a note over there to update system_requirements() as well.
Comment #12
longwaveAlthough, is this going to work, given that system_update_last_removed is still set to 8901, so how will system module appear in the updates list if someone tries to upgrade from e.g. 9.0.0?
Comment #13
longwaveI think the test needs updating:
This is still testing an update from 8.8.
Comment #14
catchI think this is an entirely new problem we've never had before. Not sure what to do about that... We might need to use user module which has user_update_9301(). Will update #3290810: Remove updates added prior to 9.4.0 (9.4.4 for ckeditor) and add 9.4.0 database dumps.
Comment #15
longwaveI think user_update_9301 will work here. We are quite lucky that user.module got that update, there is no guarantee we can always detect the difference between minor releases using only required module schema versions.
Comment #16
longwaveAddressed #12-#15
Comment #17
longwaveShould this be a beta blocker?
Should the link text here just say "Drupal upgrade guide"?
Comment #18
catch'Drupal upgrade guide' sounds like a good change to me. Looks RTBC otherwise.
Issue is listed under the metas, but tagging as a blocker too.
Comment #19
longwaveUpdated the link text.
Comment #20
dwwProbably out of scope here, but why hard-code this instead of getting it from
\Drupal::VERSION?Otherwise, the patch all looks good to me, and confirmed that https://www.drupal.org/docs/upgrading-drupal/drupal-8-and-higher is a valid and helpful docs page for this message to link to. So I'd RTBC, other than the ? on needing a follow-up...
Comment #21
longwaveLet's open a followup to discuss #20.2, and we could have a small issue to handle #20.1 as well.
Comment #22
dwwI'll open the follow-ups now, then RTBC this one.
Comment #23
dww#20.1: #3292490: Use Drupal::VERSION not hard-coded integer for current major version of core
#20.2: #3292492: Explore how to ensure we can always detect the difference between minor releases using module schema versions
Therefore, RTBC.
Thanks!
-Derek
Comment #24
catchCommitted/pushed to 10.0.x, thanks!