Closed (fixed)
Project:
Drupal core
Version:
11.4.x-dev
Component:
base system
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Bug report
Assigned:
Unassigned
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Created:
11 Jun 2026 at 20:05 UTC
Updated:
26 Jun 2026 at 22:50 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
Comments
Comment #3
dwwYup, another good find. Thanks for opening this!
Comment #4
dwwSeems like we should start the work of #2690035: Extract DrupalKernel::bootEnvironment into SAPI adapter and move the
DRUPAL_TEST_IN_CHILD_SITEblock inDrupalKernel::bootEnvironment()to a static helper method, and call it from bothbootEnvironment()andDrupalApplication.Comment #6
dwwSomething like that?
Comment #7
phenaproximaThis fully solves the problem for Drupal CMS. My feeling: land it now before 11.4 to avoid breaking folks who might run into this, refactor later.
Comment #9
kingdutch+1 on RTBC based on 16037
16039 is interesting, but makes it more complex to get rid of the
$app_rootargument frombootEnvironmentbased on the extra optional argument.At least to me it makes eliminating
bootEnvironment(or the contents ofsetupDrupalTestInChildSite) more complex, because making sure the logic is moved around is no longer enough and we now have an additional branch we need to figure out when refactoring.Comment #10
dwwThanks for the review Kingdutch! Agreed on all points. Pushed a commit to apply the suggestions, and fully make
$app_rootrequired (update docs). Also pushed a commit to markDrupalKernel::setupDrupalTestInChildSite()@internaleven though it'spublic. Pipeline is still green.However, also considered another possible solution here. Is MR!16039 better? No new method (just a new optional flag to
DrupalKernel::bootEnvironment()) and now we can call it fromDrupalApplication. Removes a @todo and @see.Updated the summary with both options for proposed resolution.
Back to NR, although either MR could be RTBC at this point.
Comment #11
dwwRestoring RTBC for MR 16037. Leaving 16039 up for committer discretion.
Comment #12
dwwFor clarity, when I wrote comment #10, comment #9 only said "+1 on RTBC". 😅 So I was only agreeing on "all points" from the review of 16037. After I posted #10, #9 was edited to compare the 2 MRs.
I think 16037 is probably better, and that's the one phenaproxima has already tested and confirmed.
Comment #13
kingdutchYeah, when I wrote +1 on RTBC I only saw one MR 😜 so edited to clarify 🤝
Edit: typo
Comment #18
godotislateCommitted changes from MR 16037 and and pushed 7554740 to main, and bd16975 to 11.x. Thanks!
Since we are in RC period, will need to check with other RMs about whether this can be backported to 11.4. Setting to Patch (to be ported) for now.
Comment #20
godotislateSpoke with @longwave on Slack, and this is good for 11.4.
Comment #23
dwwThanks! Relieved to see this in all the relevant branches.