Follow up to #2044435: Convert pager.inc to a service to remove the $GLOBALS and BC layer in \Drupal\Core\Pager\PagerManager
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #13 | interdiff-12-13.txt | 807 bytes | longwave |
| #13 | 3087517-13.patch | 37.97 KB | longwave |
| #12 | interdiff_10_12.txt | 667 bytes | mdupont |
| #12 | remove_pager_bc-3087517-12.patch | 37.47 KB | mdupont |
| #11 | remove_pager_bc-3087517-10.patch | 37.12 KB | mdupont |
Comments
Comment #2
kim.pepperComment #3
mradcliffeAdding tags for contribution day at amsterdam2019.
We should briefly clarify the proposed resolution.
Comment #4
mdupontProposed patch to remove BC layer for pager:
To be determined:
Comment #6
mdupontUpdated version of the patch, also removes pager.inc
Comment #7
mdupontMinor styling fix:
-
Drupal\Core\Cache\Context\PagersCacheContextdoesn't need to usePagerManagerInterface- fix error that was already in Core code, where
Drupal\views\Plugin\views\pager\SqlBaseusesPagerParametersdirectly instead ofPagerParametersInterface- Improved reference to class function in code comment
Comment #8
mdupontComment #9
kim.pepperThanks mdupont! All looks good to me.
I had issues trying to apply the patch removing pager.inc though. I've re-rolled it here.
Comment #11
mdupontThanks @kim.pepper! Your re-rerolled patch worked against the HEAD of the 9.x branch, however in the meantime theme_preprocess_pager() was updated in #3094536: PHP 7.1 Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in template_preprocess_pager(). Re-rerolled with the fix.
Comment #12
mdupontI removed the DeprecatedArray mentions as well in this one (as PHP CodeSniffer reminded me :-)
Comment #13
longwaveI think we should also remove the deprecated requestStack property here?
Comment #14
mdupontIndeed, looking at #2044435: Convert pager.inc to a service and the current 9.0.x HEAD, it should be removed as
PagersCacheContextdoes not extendRequestStackCacheContextBaseanymore.I went through the changes again and found no issue, I think this is good to go!
Comment #15
alexpottIn future we should use private scope for BC layers because if we really enforced API rules this is an API break.
Comment #16
alexpottCommitted 8486c38 and pushed to 9.0.x. Thanks!