Code comment says "reusable" instead of "not reusable"

@rajdeep0826:

When you assign an issue to yourself, please also leave a comment explaining what you plan to do. Since there is already a patch on this issue, you can contribute by reviewing it. From your profile, I see that this could be your first core issue. Thanks for your interest in helping!

@reinchek:

When you add a patch to an issue, you should also set the status to Needs Review (NR). This will trigger the testbot. I will do that for this issue.

I guess that @rajdeep0826 has moved on to other things, so I am unassigning this issue.

Nino:

The patch looks correct, but when I try to apply it, I get this:

$ git apply /tmp/3098922-1.patch
/tmp/3098922-1.patch:12: trailing whitespace.
 * Block_content entities that are not reusable should by default not be 
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.

Trailing whitespace should almost always be avoided. See Indenting and Whitespace in the Drupal coding standards. I am setting the issue status to NW. Please attach an updated patch and (for practice) an interdiff: Creating an interdiff.

I was reminded of the practical importance of following standards for indentation just last week. One of my coworkers fixed the indentation in composer.json and I had to resolve some merge conflicts. We should never have let the incorrect indentation get committed in the first place!

I am also updating the issue description with a reference to the relevant change record.

@shubham.prakash:

Thanks for updating the patch. It looks correct.

This issue is tagged for novices, and your profile shows that you have already contributed to many issues, including several core issues.

Since this is a novice issue, I would still like to see an interdiff: not because I need it in this case but because this is a novice issue and I want to give novices some practice in the usual process. Back to NW.

@AkashkumarOSL:

From your profile, I see that you have credit for several issues, but so far none for Drupal core. I hope you continue to contribute!

Since you accidentally uploaded a file with the .patch extension in #9, I am re-uploading the patch from #7. This helps avoid confusion for both humans and the testbot.

Your interdiff looks correct, but you did not follow the naming convention (see the link I gave in #6). The old standard was simply interdiff.txt but the current recommendation is to include the comment numbers of the patches being compared: interdiff_[old_comment_number]-[new_comment_number].txt. In this case, that would be interdiff_3-7.txt. (The patch attached to Comment #3 was misnamed.)

Actually, the documentation page is not entirely consistent on the naming convention. I will update it.