Remove current path parts from theme suggestions

I can't say I've used that functionality since Drupal 4.7 or so. Routes, view modes, etc. are far more robust. I'm +1 on removing the path-based suggestions.

The case in current project: I got a "/home" page that uses different layouts depending on user role,
and at the same time I need one of the same page--home-single.twig.html for other pages.

So hook_preprocess_page() is checking route object and current user.

Once we remove path based suggestions we need to introduce a clean way to use route name

How much functionality would we lose? Would we lose page--front?

@davidhernandez
We talk about this lines of code:

  if (\Drupal::service('path.matcher')->isFrontPage()) {
    $path_args = [''];
  }
  else {
    $path_args = explode('/', Url::fromRoute('<current>')->getInternalPath());
  }
  return theme_get_suggestions($path_args, 'page');

so this does not remove the page--front suggestion.

We are currently talking about this on the Twig group call, and no one seems to care if it goes. :)

Yeah well - let me have an opinion on this;

Using a nid for a template is a common "mistake" that people do only cause its there, and D7 is such a pita to theme.
its an epic pita to take over a theme where theres page-nid-1.tpl, page-nid-9874.tpl, page-taxonmi-999. tpl - So killing the nodeid/termid - im fine with that

What would be sad was to not more have the path, as it do have some value (page-sectionname.html.twig / page-front.html.twig), cause thats a very common usecase.
else we would have to write that stuff ourself in foo.theme (so that would need some documentation + handholding)

change record should describe a way to use page templates, #2 is not answered

@catch yup at least keeping the first part :)

page--section.html.twig would be a common usecase where a theme would probably do an {% extend page.html.twig %} and then modify it that way.

i havent looked yet in how complicated it is to add new template suggestion to the theme in .theme, if its dead easy, this could just be a documentation issue

Here is a patch to start the ball rolling on this.

I think we should decide whether we're going to do this, and to what degree.

#11 needed rerolling.

Missed the deadline on this one, bumping to 8.1.x

To have committers consider it for inclusion in RC, we should add a statement to the issue summary of why we need to make this change during RC, including what happens if we do not make the change and what any disruptions from it are. You can add a section <h3>Why this should be an RC target</h3> to the summary.

#11 Worked for me.

Reading the issue summary and #6 makes me think this is a very good thing to do.

Is there anyway we can detect such templates and warn existing sites that they are now broken?

Marking needs work for getting the CR written.

I think this is an API change at this point, so no longer an option for 8.x? We could deprecate it or something but given that no IDE will show you that, I'm not sure how useful that really is?

Patch rerolled.

Maybe an exception could be made to allow a BC break. But still Needs change record.

- put it behind a setting, enabled for new sites but not existing ones
- put it in a new optional module, enabled for new sites but not existing ones

Is that backwards? Shouldn't it be enabled for existing sites but not new ones?

Regarding the BC module idea, has this been done yet for anything else? What is the plan for that exactly? Will there be multiple BC modules for different fixes, or one that covers everything as core progresses?

Yeah, I thought about Stable but I don't like that idea. It essentially makes it permanent for most people since we aren't encouraging people to not use Stable. Being in preprocess you couldn't even undo it, could you?

They could remove the suggestions from Stable in their own theme suggestion alter hook.

Looking at some of the basic suggestions that this code is creating out of the box (added to the issue summary) I don't think it's a problem to remove the node--2 and node--% (ha) but I worry that a non-trivial amount of folks will be using page--node/html--node suggestions. If we do add BC to Stable maybe we can limit it to the first path component?

Thank you for creating this issue to improve Drupal.

We are working to decide if this task is still relevant to a currently supported version of Drupal. There hasn't been any discussion here for over 8 years which suggests that this has either been implemented or is no longer relevant. 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!

Lets keep this for now.

We're close to add support for theme hook suggestions. That said, not sure this is worth the trouble. This is discouraged but there are going to be so, so many such templates out there