Updated: Comment #N
Problem/Motivation
While working on #2084907: hook_views_pre_render() is broken if your theme implements a base theme it was hard to see which theme was active on the output page like http://drupal.d8/sites/default/files/simpletest/verbose/Drupal_views_Tes...
Why not make the test themes a little more distinct.
Checking for existing css files for both test_basetheme and test_subtheme non exists. How's that?
Checking for ie test_basetheme.info.yml it is not clear why stylesheets summary is as is
stylesheets:
all:
- base-add.css
- base-add.sub-override.css
- base-add.sub-remove.css
stylesheets-override:
- base-override.css
- base-override.sub-remove.css
stylesheets-remove:
- base-remove.css
- base-remove.sub-override.css
Proposed resolution
Add stylesheet to distinguise between the two test themes.
Remaining tasks
Should we document this?
Does this needs a test?
User interface changes
API changes
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #2 | core-theme-test-add-css.patch | 981 bytes | clemens.tolboom |
| core-theme-test-add-css-do-not-test.patch | 981 bytes | clemens.tolboom |
Comments
Comment #1
alansaviolobo commentedpatch still applies
Comment #2
clemens.tolboom@alansaviolobo thanksfor pinging this issue.
New patch is not changed but will be tested. Maybe that helps to get more attention?
Comment #3
joachim commentedI'm not sure this credit really belongs here. It's not as though we're actually using the actual idea from that blog, we're just using the CSS content property, which is fairly well-known. I don't think we usually credit techniques unless they're especially unusual. And even then, that's what the git log and the issue it points to are for.
Comment #4
joelpittetThis is a good idea. Agree with #3 and we'd need to attach that CSS file to the page. It may be worth just adding those strings to the top/bottom of
html.html.twig?Bumping to 8.1.x as it's a feature request.
Comment #5
joelpittetComment #21
smustgrave commentedThank you for sharing your idea for improving Drupal.
We are working to decide if this proposal meets the Criteria for evaluating proposed changes. There hasn't been any discussion here for over 8 years which suggests that this has either been implemented or there is no community support. Your thoughts on this will allow a decision to be made.
Since we need more information to move forward with this issue, the status is now Postponed (maintainer needs more info). If we don't receive additional information to help with the issue, it may be closed after three months.
Thanks!
Comment #22
smustgrave commentedSince there's been no interest in 10 years going to close this one out. If still a needed feature can always be re-opened.