Properly wrap action module help for the "add" and "edit" options in a <p> tag

I believe this is not a bug but an improvement.
Thanks!

+++ b/core/modules/action/action.module
@@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ function action_help($route_name, RouteMatchInterface $route_match) {
-      return t('An advanced action offers additional configuration options which may be filled out below. Changing the <em>Description</em> field is recommended in order to better identify the precise action taking place.');
+      $output = '<p>' . t('An advanced action offers additional configuration options which may be filled out below. Changing the <em>Description</em> field is recommended in order to better identify the precise action taking place.') . '</p>';
+      return $output;

I do not see the need to add this variable in this patch.

@Prashant.c Improve your patch.

please review .

No reason to make changes outside of the scope of the issue https://www.drupal.org/core/scope

Makes sense to add the p tags for consistency. Rerolling the patch from #2

I will do a new rerrol

Hi I did a reroll, please revise!

AS per #13, patch 27 introduces out of scope changes. I think #22 should be used as the patch for this issue. The fails were random fails from ckeditor5. Rerunning the test now.

Ok I will revise it

Moving to needs review

Moving back to needs work because patch #22 failed in Drupal tests (#24) and reroll removed the output variable.

#22 is passing tests - You can see its green if you look undernealth the patch. The first fail was a random fail from ckeditor5 unreleated to this patch.

We don't need to introduce an $output variable, we can just return the markup.

The test are passing and the patch in #22 does exactly as asked in the issue summary.
and as said in other comments, is passing the tests.
Its RTBC in my opinion.

Thanks everyone for your efforts on this documentation improvement.

As has been explained numerous times on this issue, we do not need to set $output here and should not introduce out-of-scope changes to the patch. The fact that it passes tests does not make it RTBC. There is no test coverage for the content of a help page, so the test result isn't actually all that relevant here. Someone should have manually tested it. I did.

The patch in #22 applies fine and is what we want, so I am going to commit that. I am removing credit for the unnecessary reroll in #27 and other scope creep.

Please take care in the future to read all the issue comments of the issue, so that you don't end up spending time rerolling a patch for an approach that was already rejected. Less code is better.

This is the only change in scope for this issue:

Committed #22 to 10.1.x. Thanks!