API page: https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/core%21modules%21taxonomy%21src%21Term...

TermStorage::loadTree() doesn't document what the return array is keyed by.

Issue fork drupal-3058409

Command icon Show commands

Start within a Git clone of the project using the version control instructions.

Or, if you do not have SSH keys set up on git.drupalcode.org:

About issue forks
Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

joachim created an issue. See original summary.

init90’s picture

init90
Location Ukraine
CreditAttribution: init90 at ZANZARRA Drupal Agency, Drupal Ukraine Community commented

Looks like loadTree() always return numeric (indexed) an array. In that case 'keyed by' indication seems unneeded.

joachim’s picture

joachim CreditAttribution: joachim commented

Most of the load() or loadFoo() methods on entity storage handlers are keyed by entity ID, so this should say its numerically-indexed array so developers don't make an incorrect assumption.

Version: 8.8.x-dev » 8.9.x-dev

Drupal 8.8.0-alpha1 will be released the week of October 14th, 2019, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.9.x-dev branch. (Any changes to 8.9.x will also be committed to 9.0.x in preparation for Drupal 9’s release, but some changes like significant feature additions will be deferred to 9.1.x.). For more information see the Drupal 8 and 9 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 and 9 release cycles.

Version: 8.9.x-dev » 9.1.x-dev

Drupal 8.9.0-beta1 was released on March 20, 2020. 8.9.x is the final, long-term support (LTS) minor release of Drupal 8, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 9.1.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 and 9 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 and 9 release cycles.

Version: 9.1.x-dev » 9.2.x-dev

Drupal 9.1.0-alpha1 will be released the week of October 19, 2020, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 9.2.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 9 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 9 release cycle.

Version: 9.2.x-dev » 9.3.x-dev

Drupal 9.2.0-alpha1 will be released the week of May 3, 2021, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 9.3.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal core minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal core release cycle.

Version: 9.3.x-dev » 9.4.x-dev

Drupal 9.3.0-rc1 was released on November 26, 2021, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 9.4.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal core minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal core release cycle.

guilhermevp’s picture

guilhermevp CreditAttribution: guilhermevp at CI&T commented
Assigned: Unassigned » guilhermevp

guilhermevp opened merge request !1683

guilhermevp’s picture

guilhermevp CreditAttribution: guilhermevp at CI&T commented
Assigned: guilhermevp » Unassigned
Status: Active » Needs review

Sending MR, please review!

Should this be tagged under bug smash initiative?

joachim’s picture

joachim CreditAttribution: joachim as a volunteer commented
Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

Perfect, thanks!

quietone’s picture

quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commented
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work

Sorry, wee grammar error.

joachim’s picture

joachim CreditAttribution: joachim at Factorial GmbH commented

I'd say "numerically indexed" to avoid ambiguity. Searching core shows that phrase is used quite often.

ravi.shankar made their first commit to this issue’s fork.

andregp’s picture

andregp CreditAttribution: andregp at CI&T commented
Status: Needs work » Reviewed & tested by the community

Moving to RTBC for the following reasons.
- The change is simple and looks fine.
- @joachim already RTBCed this on #12
- The small correction asked by @quietone on #13 was correctly fixed in #15

quietone’s picture

quietone CreditAttribution: quietone at PreviousNext commented
Version: 9.4.x-dev » 10.0.x-dev
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work

This will need a 10.0.x branch. I tried to change it in GitLab but it needs to be rebased.

joachim opened merge request !2262

joachim’s picture

joachim CreditAttribution: joachim as a volunteer commented
Status: Needs work » Reviewed & tested by the community

Done!

The git command to use for this is:

> git rebase --onto 10.0.x 9.4.x

which means 'snip at 9.4.x and then stick onto 10.0.x'

  • catch committed 43a7efe on 10.0.x 
    Issue #3058409 by guilhermevp, joachim, ravi.shankar, quietone, init90,...

  • catch committed 5a9f90a on 9.3.x 
    Issue #3058409 by guilhermevp, joachim, ravi.shankar, quietone, init90,...
  • catch committed 002f164 on 9.4.x
    Issue #3058409 by guilhermevp, joachim, ravi.shankar, quietone, init90,...
  • catch committed d616016 on 9.5.x
    Issue #3058409 by guilhermevp, joachim, ravi.shankar, quietone, init90,...
catch’s picture

catch
he/him
Primary language English
CreditAttribution: catch at Third and Grove commented
Version: 10.0.x-dev » 9.3.x-dev
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Committed/pushed to 10.0.x and backported through to 9.3.x, thanks!

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.