Rename 'Editorial workflow' to 'Editorial'

Makes perfect sense :)

Unrelated fail.

Do we want an update hook/post update hook to change the label on existing installs?

As it doesn't really make a difference to the usage and its an experimental module, I'd vote no.

Given experimental status, I think no upgrade path is best. Adding a single test for an upgrade path ensures that any future non-upgrade-path entity schema changes will actually fail that test, even if unrelated to the thing originally being tested, which we don't want.

While the schema/BC is being rapidly broken, I think even adding an upgrade path for changes which are really easy sends the wrong message. If a user sees an updb, I think that contributes to the very wrong expectation that there is some kind of upgrade path in place.

Hey, I have a screenshot of the "Editorial workflow workflow" bug on my desktop too. :) Glad someone else filed and fixed it since I didn't get around to it.

Do we want an update hook/post update hook to change the label on existing installs?

In general, we should not update existing sites based on changes we decide to make for default configuration, because we have no way of knowing if they got the value from defaults shipped by core and don't care about it, or if they got it another way or chose it on purpose. If we change sites' stored configuration in this way, we might be breaking something they changed on purpose. This is the idea that "sites own their configuration, not modules". (Further reading: https://www.chapterthree.com/blog/principles-of-configuration-management...)

So I agree that we don't need an update hook here.

I confirmed this is replacing all instances by scanning the results of a grep for "editorial".

I also double-checked what it looks like now on other admin screens:

This change made me notice that we should probably have the title for the edit page be "Edit %workflow workflow" also.
Compare content types:

I'm sort of on the fence as to whether or not this should be in scope. Fixing the "Editorial workflow workflow" bug is introducing a different usability issue for content moderation, because in contexts where the workflow label is used without the word workflow, it's now less clear for the editorial workflow, at least. So that's a case for adding it to the scope for this issue. If others disagree on that scope expansion, though, I'd at least like a followup issue for that.

Meanwhile, my second screenshot shows a different usability issue, which is that the description of the label field does not add any meaningful information, so it should be removed. That's definitely out of scope so I made this: #2897686: Description for workflow label field does not add any information

Thanks @xjm for the review, excellent point on making the title of the workflow edit form more descriptive. Let's do that :)

Think we're good to go back to RTBC!

Committed as 6fb8ad4 and pushed to 8.4.x.

This caused a fail in HEAD, reverted

Then let's fix it :)

+++ b/core/modules/content_moderation/tests/src/Kernel/ContentModerationWorkflowConfigTest.php
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ public function testDeletingStateViaConfiguration() {
-        'The workflow Editorial workflow is being used, and cannot be deleted.',
+        'The workflow Editorial is being used, and cannot be deleted.',

thus highlighting the need for this patch!

will recommit after full run

OK, take 2 committed as b3aa553 and pushed to 8.4.x.

Thanks for the quick turnaround on the patch.

See you in the other workflow/content moderation issues