Is there any significance of specifying optional migration dependency twice for d7_field_instance ?
If No; Lets remove it from user module's migration templates (core/modules/user/migration_templates/d7_user.yml).

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#3 2908557-3.patch434 bytesneerajsingh

Comments

neerajsingh created an issue. See original summary.

neerajsingh’s picture

neerajsingh
Primary language English
Location IN 🇮🇳
commented
Assigned: Unassigned » neerajsingh
neerajsingh’s picture

neerajsingh
Primary language English
Location IN 🇮🇳
commented
Assigned: neerajsingh » Unassigned
StatusFileSize
new 2908557-3.patch434 bytes

Adding the patch here..

neerajsingh’s picture

neerajsingh
Primary language English
Location IN 🇮🇳
commented
Status: Active » Needs review
jofitz’s picture

jofitz
he/him
commented
Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

Oops! I was involved in the patch that added that.

Correction looks good to me. Setting to RTBC - I see know reason why the tests should fail.

  • xjm committed 864c9ed on 8.5.x 
    Issue #2908557 by neerajsingh: Optional migration dependency specified...

xjm credited xjm.

xjm’s picture

xjm
she/her
Primary language English
commented
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

I confirmed that this dependency is already listed at the top of the same optional dependencies array in the correct alphabetical order. Nothing to test here as it basically was just redefining the same item. Committed and pushed to 8.5.x, and cherry-picked to 8.4.x as a non-disruptive cleanup during RC. Thanks!

  • xjm committed e77fec1 on 8.4.x 
    Issue #2908557 by neerajsingh: Optional migration dependency specified...

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

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