Incorrect documentation about dates in node template

Reviewing.

Targoo, i've added the same documentation to the documentation of Bartik as well.

Patch apply and works as #6 and #3 says.

+++ b/core/modules/node/templates/node.html.twig
@@ -11,6 +11,9 @@
+ *   - changedtime: Formatted changed date. Preprocess functions can
+ *     reformat it by calling format_date() with the desired parameters on
+ *     $variables['node']->getChangedTime().

+++ b/core/themes/bartik/templates/node.html.twig
@@ -11,6 +11,9 @@
+ *   - changedtime: Formatted changed date. Preprocess functions can
+ *     reformat it by calling format_date() with the desired parameters on
+ *     $variables['node']->getChangedTime().

The bit about preprocess functions reformatting it looks false.

Janne to the rescue!

Fixed the row length and it now seems to run smooth as silk.

You are welcome.

Now it is time for other rescue missions. TBC

Looks good to me. Added AnninaJ also there since she was working on the issue with Janne at the Drupal sprints in Helsinki.

Added beta evaluation

1.
@lauriii thank you for working with new contributors.

I see the suggested commit message you added to the summary (#16).

For the message to be parsed correctly later, a comma needs to be between each drupal.org username.

Also, please contact AnninaJ and have them make a comment on this issue. Since they were working on it also, perhaps they can add some information in the form of a review, or upload their version of the patch they were working on making. (Which we could then use to compare to @janne.valtakari's as a kind of a review).

2.
AnninaJ, it can be frustrating to work on something, and when you come to an issue to post your work, you see someone else has just posted something similar.

When that happens, the "silver lining", is that you can probably review the work they did.

To prevent that in the future, when you start to do something on an issue, it is OK (and I even encourage people) to post a comment and say what you are about to do. Like "I'm at a sprint in Brazil with @YesCT and I'm going to reformat the comment to 80 characters. It will be my first core patch." or "I'm going to do manual testing on this issue now." or "I'm going to... whatever." you get the idea. It can also help to jump into irc in #drupal-contribute and say something similar.

3.
in #10 @alexpott said

The bit about preprocess functions reformatting it looks false.

I dont think Alex was worried that the 80 character format of the comment was off.

It sounds like he meant the comment was not accurate.

@lauriii you RTBC'd this, can you please share with us some reference or explanation at how you checked that the comment was accurate and how the change addressed @alexpott's concern? "Looks good to me" does not really express enough information for me to know what it was that you evaluated. Did you evaluate just the 80 character coding standard, or did you look into the accuracy of the comment itself and how it relates to @alexpott's concern? It's ok if you only did part, but it helps to know that some other part still needs review.

1-2: Janne and Annina were working together on the issue at the sprints so there's only one ouput :)

3. I'm sorry, I misread @alexpott's comment and RTBC'd the issue against #9

Before I forget: We need to update Classy's node.html.twig as well.

Also before I forget: Thanks to everyone who has worked on this so far :)

1. +++ b/core/modules/node/templates/node.html.twig
   @@ -8,9 +8,12 @@
   - *   - createdtime: Formatted creation date. Preprocess functions can
   - *     reformat it by calling format_date() with the desired parameters on
   + *   - createdtime: Formatted creation date. Preprocess functions can reformat
   + *     it by calling format_date() with the desired parameters on
     *     $variables['node']->getCreatedTime().
   + *   - changedtime: Formatted changed date. Preprocess functions can reformat it
   + *     by calling format_date() with the desired parameters on
   + *     $variables['node']->getChangedTime().
   

   Neither node.createdtime nor node.changedtime are "formatted" dates, they both come out as Unix timestamps.

   So I think we should:

   1. Say that they are Unix timestamps.

   2. Remove the bit about reformatting in preprocess, that rings false to me because you can't manipulate a function call. git log -S led me to #2049039: Convert node properties to methods. on that point.

2. +++ b/core/modules/node/templates/node.html.twig
   @@ -8,9 +8,12 @@
   diff --git a/core/scripts/run-tests.sh b/core/scripts/run-tests.sh
   
   diff --git a/core/scripts/run-tests.sh b/core/scripts/run-tests.sh
   old mode 100644
   new mode 100755
   

   Remove the file mode change from the patch.

Re-rolled the patch and adding the updating patch.

Thanks @piyuesh23, please see comment 21. This didn't really need a reroll, a new patch will be easier IMO. But now we can do an interdiff I suppose :)

I wonder if the description is good enough..

Oops, forgot to change the status

Updated the text to make it more descriptive. Otherwise looking good!

Updated the text to make it more descriptive.

Works fine for me.

Looks good

I was going to commit this, but realized it might make a good candidate for a LIVE commit. :)

Ok, we ended up doing a different patch on live commit, sorry about that!

Committed and pushed to 8.0.x. Thanks!